Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Strike 3 Holdings · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · June 25, 2025 · No. 25cv1466-JES-SBC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s ex parte application to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorizes a Rule 45 subpoena to Spectrum seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the identified IP address during the relevant period in a copyright infringement action against a John Doe defendant. It requires notice to the subscriber and limits discovery to the authorized identification information.

Holdings

  1. A court may permit limited early discovery after a complaint is filed when the plaintiff shows good cause to obtain identifying information necessary to serve an unknown defendant.
  2. Plaintiff established good cause for early discovery because it identified the Doe defendant with sufficient specificity, described prior efforts to locate the defendant, alleged facts sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, and showed a reasonable likelihood that the subpoena would yield identifying information.
  3. A cable operator may disclose subscriber information pursuant to a court order when the operator notifies the subscriber of the order.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff established good cause for expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference to identify an unknown copyright-infringement defendant.
  2. Whether plaintiff satisfied the three-factor test requiring specific identification of a real suable person or entity, prior good-faith efforts to locate the defendant, and a complaint capable of withstanding a motion to dismiss.
  3. Whether the requested subpoena could be authorized consistently with the Cable Privacy Act.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)(followed)
  • Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
  • Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002)(followed)
  • Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)(followed)
  • 808 Holdings, LLC v. Collective of Dec. 29, 2011 Sharing Hash, No. 12-cv-0186 MMA (RBB), 2012 WL 12884688, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…