Summary
The court grants Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s ex parte application for expedited discovery to subpoena the internet service provider associated with IP address 104.220.13.133. The order limits the subpoena to the subscriber’s name and address, imposes notice and confidentiality safeguards, prohibits formal service absent further court order, and establishes procedures for a possible informal conference and status reporting.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference.
- Whether plaintiff should be permitted to subpoena the ISP for the true name and address associated with the specified IP address.
- What privacy and procedural safeguards were necessary before permitting the identifying subpoena.
Holdings
- Good cause supported permitting limited expedited discovery because plaintiff presented a prima facie copyright claim, specified narrowly tailored discovery, lacked an alternative means to identify the defendant, and needed the information to proceed with the action.
- Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a subpoena seeking only the true name and address of the person or entity to whom the specified IP address was assigned.
- The expedited discovery authorization must include safeguards protecting the potential defendant, including notice, an opportunity to move to quash, continued anonymity, and a prohibition on formal service absent further court order.
Key quotations
“Good cause exists ‘where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.’” (Discussion section II.A)
“As such, “Establishing that the person identified by discovery is the person who infringed upon the copyright will likely require additional proofs beyond the fact that the individual is listed as the subscriber on the account from which the infringing activity originated.”” (Discussion section II.C)
Factual background
Strike 3 Holdings alleged that copyrighted adult films were downloaded and distributed through BitTorrent from the specified IP address. Plaintiff had a list of downloads associated with that address but could not identify the individual or entity using it. Plaintiff sought the ISP subscriber's name and address, while the court noted that an IP subscriber may not be the person who performed the alleged infringement and that mistaken identification could cause embarrassment, reputational harm, or coercive settlement pressure.
Procedural history
Strike 3 Holdings filed the action on May 3, 2025, alleging that an unidentified person using the specified IP address infringed its copyrights by downloading and distributing films through BitTorrent. Because plaintiff could identify the defendant only by IP address, it moved for leave to subpoena the ISP before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court granted the application subject to limitations and privacy safeguards.