{"id":432,"date":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=432"},"modified":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","slug":"strike-3-holdings-john-doe-isp-subpoena-copyright-doe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=432","title":{"rendered":"Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe \u2014 S.D. Cal. Allows ISP Subpoena for Adult-Content Copyright Defendant’s Identity, Imposes Confidentiality Protection"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-09<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-03727<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Copyright infringement, expedited discovery before Rule 26(f) conference, ISP subpoena, John Doe defendants, protective orders for online infringement defendants<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, owns adult-content films and is a frequent copyright plaintiff in federal courts across the country. Strike 3 filed a complaint in the Southern District of California against a John Doe defendant identified only by an internet protocol (“IP”) address that the company traced via geolocation technology to San Diego. The complaint alleges that the Doe defendant downloaded and distributed 25 of Strike 3’s films using the BitTorrent peer-to-peer protocol over an extended period, in violation of the Copyright Act.<\/p>\n

To identify the Doe defendant, Strike 3 needed the subscriber name and address associated with the IP address from the internet service provider (“ISP”), Spectrum. But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally bars a party from seeking discovery before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. To get around that bar, Strike 3 filed an ex parte application asking the court to authorize an early subpoena to Spectrum.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted the ex parte application but added confidentiality protections to safeguard the Doe defendant’s privacy until he or she has the opportunity to file a motion to proceed anonymously.<\/p>\n

The court applied the well-established three-factor test for pre-Rule-26(f) discovery in John Doe cases from Columbia Insurance Co. v. seescandy.com<\/em>: (1) the plaintiff must identify the missing party with sufficient specificity to show it is a real person who could be sued; (2) the plaintiff must describe its prior efforts to locate the defendant; and (3) the plaintiff must show its complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n

Strike 3 cleared all three factors. It used geolocation technology to trace the IP address to San Diego before filing. It described its other efforts to identify the defendant \u2014 web search tools, cybersecurity consultations \u2014 that did not yield a name. And its complaint stated a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement that would likely withstand a motion to dismiss, as well as adequately pleading personal jurisdiction and venue based on the geolocated IP address.<\/p>\n

The court added important privacy protections. Citing the “highly personal nature” of the alleged infringement and the well-known possibility that the ISP subscriber may not be the actual infringer, the court ordered all parties to treat any identifying information produced by Spectrum as confidential until the Doe defendant has the opportunity to file a motion to proceed anonymously and the court has had a chance to rule on it. The court limited access to identifying information to specified categories (counsel, retained vendors, designated party representatives) and prohibited use outside this litigation.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n