Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.222.122.96 — Court Grants Early Subpoena to Identify BitTorrent User in Copyright Case

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed this copyright infringement action on September 29, 2026, against an unidentified defendant known only as the subscriber assigned IP address 107.222.122.96. The complaint alleges that between July 2 and July 7, 2026, that subscriber used the BitTorrent file distribution network to illegally download and distribute twenty-four of Strike 3's motion pictures, which are distributed through adult content websites, and asserts a single count of direct copyright infringement.

Because the alleged infringement occurred anonymously online, Strike 3 knows the defendant only by the IP address assigned by Internet Service Provider AT&T Internet. It filed an ex parte application seeking leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Internet before the Rule 26(f) conference to obtain the subscriber's name and address. No opposition was filed because no defendant had yet been served or named.

To support the application, Strike 3 submitted four declarations: from Jorge Arco describing its VXN Scan infringement detection system; from computer forensics expert Patrick Paige, who confirmed the IP address uploaded file pieces matching Strike 3's movies; from employee Susan B. Stalzer, who verified the downloaded files matched the copyrighted works; and from General Counsel Emilie Kennedy, who explained that Maxmind geolocation technology traced the IP address to San Diego, within the court's jurisdiction.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted the application, finding good cause under the framework of Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com. First, it found Strike 3 identified the missing defendant with sufficient specificity by providing the unique IP address used during the alleged infringement and geolocation evidence tracing it to San Diego, establishing that the defendant is likely subject to the court's jurisdiction. Second, it found Strike 3 made a good faith effort to locate the defendant through web searches, expert consultations, and review of legal authorities, and that subpoenaing the ISP is the only remaining avenue to identify the subscriber.

Third, the court found the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss because Strike 3 alleged ownership of valid registered copyrights and that the defendant violated its exclusive rights by downloading and distributing the works without authorization, satisfying the prima facie elements of direct copyright infringement. The court also found the specific discovery request adequate even though Strike 3 did not submit a proposed subpoena, because the application made clear the subpoena would seek only the subscriber's true name and address.

Despite granting leave, the court expressed concern about unscrupulous settlement tactics by certain plaintiffs in the adult film industry and imposed a limited protective order: the subpoena may seek only the subscriber's name and address, must provide at least forty-five days' notice before production, and the subscriber has thirty days to challenge disclosure. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce its rights in the complaint and may not release identifying information if the defendant wishes to proceed anonymously without a further court order.

Key Takeaways

• Copyright plaintiffs seeking to identify anonymous BitTorrent users must satisfy the Columbia Insurance factors: identify the defendant with sufficient specificity, demonstrate good faith efforts to locate the defendant, and show the complaint could survive a motion to dismiss.
• Geolocation evidence tracing an IP address to a physical location within the court's jurisdiction, combined with forensic analysis of BitTorrent transactions, can establish sufficient specificity to support early discovery.
• Courts remain concerned about abusive settlement tactics in adult film copyright cases and will impose protective orders limiting the scope of ISP subpoenas and requiring notice to subscribers before their identities are disclosed.
• A plaintiff need not submit a proposed subpoena with its application if the request clearly identifies the limited information sought and the court can determine it would make service of process possible.
• Subscribers whose identities are subpoenaed must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena before disclosure, and plaintiffs may use the information only for purposes of the litigation.

Why It Matters

This order applies the Columbia Insurance framework to BitTorrent copyright cases in the Southern District of California, confirming that plaintiffs can obtain pre-conference discovery to identify Doe defendants when they provide detailed technical evidence linking an IP address to infringing activity and a physical location, while balancing the copyright owner's need to identify infringers against the privacy interests of possibly innocent internet subscribers.

The protective order provisions—including the forty-five-day notice period, the thirty-day window to challenge the subpoena, and the restriction on using the information only for litigation purposes—provide a template for other courts seeking to prevent abuse while allowing legitimate copyright enforcement in anonymous infringement cases.