Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s ex parte application for expedited discovery to identify the subscriber associated with an IP address allegedly used for BitTorrent copyright infringement. The order limits the subpoena to the subscriber’s true name and address, requires notice and privacy protections, prohibits formal service without further order, and establishes procedures for a potential defendant to challenge the subpoena.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff established good cause for expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d).
- Whether plaintiff should be permitted to serve a subpoena on the ISP to obtain the name and address associated with the subject IP address.
- What privacy and procedural safeguards were necessary before allowing the subpoena and disclosure of the Doe defendant's identity.
Holdings
- A court may authorize expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference when good cause exists, meaning that the need for expedited discovery, considered against the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party. Plaintiff established good cause because it stated a prima facie copyright claim, narrowly sought identifying information, had no practical alternative to an ISP subpoena, and could not proceed without identifying the defendant.
- Plaintiff may conduct limited expedited discovery by serving the ISP with a subpoena seeking only the true name and address of the person or entity to whom the subject IP address was assigned.
- Authorization of the subpoena required safeguards, including limiting the subpoena to the subscriber's name and address, prohibiting formal service absent further order, allowing the identified person an opportunity to move to quash, requiring service of the order after identification, and prohibiting plaintiff from revealing the defendant's identity without court permission.
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.’” (at 2)
“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.”” (at 4)
Factual background
Strike 3 alleged that an unidentified person used BitTorrent to download and distribute its copyrighted adult films through IP address 174.160.191.147. Plaintiff provided a list of downloads associated with that IP address but could not determine the user's name or address without subpoenaing the ISP. The court noted that the subscriber to an IP address may not be the person who engaged in the alleged infringement and that identifying a person in a pornography-related action could create embarrassment, reputational harm, and settlement pressure.
Procedural history
Strike 3 Holdings filed the action on June 27, 2025, alleging that an anonymous user associated with IP address 174.160.191.147 downloaded and distributed copyrighted films using BitTorrent. Because plaintiff could identify the defendant only by IP address, it sought leave to subpoena the ISP for the subscriber's name and address before the parties' Rule 26(f) conference. The court granted the application subject to limits and privacy safeguards.