January v. Doe, No. 2:24-cv-8183-TJH (Jan. 22, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Jan. 22, 2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
Sheri Pym (J.) (unanimous Court)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DoeUnited States District Court, C.D. California. | January 22, 2025 | Slip Copy | 2025 WL 882212Document Detailsstandard Citation:Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:24-CV-8183-TJH (SPX), 2025WL 882212 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2025)All Citations:Slip Copy, 2025 WL 882212Search DetailsJurisdiction:CaliforniaDelivery DetailsDate:May 18, 2025 at 7:09 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineAttorneys and LawFirms (p.1)Proceedings: (InChambers) OrderDenying Defendant'sMotion to Quash andRequest to Seal [14](p.1)All Citations (p.4)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 882212Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, C.D. California.STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLCv.John DOE subscriber assignedIP address 76.87.160.110Case No. 2:24-cv-8183-TJH (SPx)|Filed January 22, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsLincoln D. Bandlow, Law Offices of Lincoln BandlowPC, Los Angeles, CA, for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.Fre'Drisha M Dixon, Dixon Law Partners, LosAngeles, CA, for John Doe subscriber assigned IPaddress 76.87.160.110.Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DenyingDefendant's Motion to Quash and Request to Seal[14]Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate JudgeI. INTRODUCTION*1 On December 19, 2024, defendant John Doefiled a motion to quash plaintiff Strike 3 Holding,LLC's subpoena to Spectrum,1 defendant's InternetService Provider (“ISP”), seeking defendant's identityinformation. Docket no. 14. Defendant also requeststo seal filings. Id. Plaintiff filed an opposition todefendant's motion on December 23, 2024. Docket no.15.After reviewing the parties' papers, the court nowdenies defendant's motion to quash and request to seal,but allows defendant to proceed pseudonymously, forthe reasons discussed below.II. BACKGROUNDPlaintiff is the owner of adult motion pictures.Compl. at 1. These motion pictures are distributedthrough various adult websites and DVDs. Id. at 1-2.Plaintiff alleges defendant used BitTorrent protocolto download plaintiff's motion pictures and distributethem to others, committing copyright infringement. Id.at 2.Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action on September23, 2024. On October 16, 2024, plaintiff filed anex parte application for leave to serve a third-partysubpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. Docket no.11. The court granted plaintiff's ex parte applicationthe next day, including a limited protective order in itsruling. Docket no. 12. In particular, the court grantedplaintiff permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena onSpectrum to obtain defendant's true name and address,but ordered that it must include a copy of the court'sorder. Id. The order gave Spectrum 30 days from thedate of service upon it to serve defendant with a copyof the subpoena and the court's order. Id. Defendantthen had 30 days from the date of service upon himor her to file any motions contesting the subpoena. Id.Spectrum was not to turn over defendant's identifyinginformation to plaintiff before the expiration of the 30-day period, or until the court ruled on any motion fromdefendant. Id.Following plaintiff's service of the subpoena onSpectrum regarding defendant's Spectrum account,defendant filed the present motion.III. DISCUSSIONA. The Court Will Not Quash the SubpoenaMotions to quash are governed by Rule 45 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant does notraise any legitimate grounds for quashing the subpoenaunder Rule 45(d)(3).Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3)(A), a court is required toquash or modify a subpoena if it: fails to allow areasonable time to comply; requires a person to complybeyond the specified geographical limits; requiresdisclosure of privileged or other protected matter; or
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Rule 45(d)(3)(B) also permits a court to quashor modify a subpoena if it requires disclosing a tradesecret or other confidential research, development, orcommercial information, or disclosing an unretainedexpert's opinion or information that does not describespecific occurrences in dispute and results from theexpert's study that was not requested by a party. Fed.R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B).*2 First, defendant argues, in wholly conclusoryfashion, the court should quash the subpoena becauseplaintiff fails to present any specific evidence thatdefendant engaged in any unlawful activity. Mtn. at3. Defendant contends that IP addresses alone areinsufficient to establish liability and concrete evidenceof infringement is required. Id. This argument isunpersuasive. In Cobbler Nevada LLC v. Gonzalez,901 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuitheld that a bare allegation that a defendant is theregistered subscriber of an IP address associated withinfringing activity is insufficient to state a claimfor copyright infringement; rather, “[a] plaintiff mustallege something more to create a reasonable inferencethat a subscriber is also an infringer.” Id. at 1144-45.But Cobbler Nevada does not bar early discovery bymeans of a subpoena to an ISP for a subscriber'sidentity, which is what plaintiff seeks here. See Strike3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2019 WL 2996428, at *3(N.D. Cal. July 9, 2019) (stating that “Cobbler Nevadadoes not stand for the proposition that subpoenas maynot be used to determine a subscriber's name” andlisting cases so holding). Rather, in Cobbler Nevada,the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint because it wasunable to plead anything more than the subscriber'sidentity even after permitting plaintiff to subpoena theISP for defendant's identifying information, conductan initial investigation into the defendant, and deposethe defendant. See Cobbler Nevada LLC, 901 F.3d at1145-46.Here, at this early stage in this litigation, plaintiff hasmade an adequate showing of the need to subpoenadefendant's ISP and nothing in Cobbler Nevadaprevents such targeted early discovery. Thus, to theextent defendant argues plaintiff has failed to allegesufficient evidence to prove defendant is the actualinfringer, such argument is premature and does notjustify quashing the subpoena.Second, defendant makes the bare assertion thatplaintiff failed to establish a legal claim becauseit has a “well documented history of ... engagingin predatory litigation practices designed to extractsettlement payments” regardless of the merits of thecase, and courts have condemned defendant's actions.Mtn. at 3-4. Defendant cites no evidence or caselaw tosupport this argument. Moreover, this is not a basis toquash a subpoena.Finally, defendant contends the disclosure ofdefendant's identity would cause significantreputational and financial harm. Mtn. at 3. To the extentdefendant objects to the disclosure of his true name andaddress to plaintiff on privacy grounds, that is still nota ground for quashing the subpoena. A cable operatormay disclose a subscriber's personally identifiableinformation “pursuant to a court order authorizingsuch disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of suchorder.” 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). In its order grantingplaintiff's ex parte application for leave to servethe subpoena, the court authorized such disclosureand provided for defendant's notification, which hasplainly occurred. See Docket no. 12. Further, the courtnotes that courts have found the interest of copyrightholders to seek limited discovery from an ISP toestablish a potential infringer's identity outweighsdefendant's interest in his right to privacy regardinghis personal information. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLCv. Doe, 2019 WL 935390, at *4-*5 (E.D. Cal. Feb.26, 2019) (denying defendant's motion to quash inorder to allow plaintiff to determine whether it canobtain the identity of the proper defendant, and notingdefendant could raise any factual innocence claim ina motion to dismiss); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe,2019 WL 78987, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019)(denying defendant's motion to quash because theinformation sought is relevant and will allow plaintiffto identify the infringer); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v.Doe, 2019 WL 1122984, at *3-*5 (D. Conn. Mar. 12,2019) (denying defendant's motion to quash becausethe scales tipped in favor of allowing plaintiff to obtaindefendant's identity, given the defendant may haveinfringed on the plaintiff's copyright). Accordingly,the court finds plaintiff's interest in seeking limiteddiscovery here outweighs defendant's privacy interest.But as explained below, defendant may proceedpseudonymously as “John Doe.”
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3B. Defendant's Request to Seal the Motion IsDenied But a Protective Order Allowing Defendantto Proceed Pseudonymously Is Warranted*3 In its order granting plaintiff's ex parte applicationfor leave to take early discovery, the court indicateddefendant could request to remain anonymous in thislitigation. Docket no. 12 at 2. Defendant has notmade this request, but instead requests the instant“motion and any supported documents” be filed underseal. Mtn. at 4. Plaintiff contends defendant failed tocomply with the Local Rules for filing a request tofile under seal and, in any event, has already filed themotion. Opp. at 3. Plaintiff further notes that althoughit ordinarily does not oppose a protective order, itcannot consent to the “vague and mysterious nature”of defendant's request and instead requests to meet andconfer with defendant about crafting a protective order.Id. at 2.Defendant has failed to comply with any of theprocedures required to file documents under seal.Under the local rules, court approval is required to fileunder seal. See L.R. 79-5. Local Rule 79-5.2 sets forththe procedures that must be followed and the standardsthat will be applied when a party seeks permission tofile material under seal. See L.R. 79-5.2. Defendanthas not only failed to comply with the procedures,defendant's request is moot because he already filedthe motion. Further, it is unclear why defendant wishedto file the motion under seal since it contains noidentifying information.Nonetheless, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure, the court may sua sponteenter a protective order for good cause to spareparties “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, orundue burden.” Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2018WL 357287, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018) (citingMcCoy v. Southwest Airlines Co., Inc., 211 F.R.D.381, 385 (C.D. Cal. 2002)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).Here, the court finds a meet and confer on this matteris unnecessary and there is good cause to issue anorder allowing defendant to proceed pseudonymouslyas “John Doe” throughout this litigation, unless anduntil the court orders otherwise. This protective orderaddresses any privacy concerns defendant may havewhile plaintiff has an opportunity to further investigatewhether defendant is the infringer, and thus there is nobasis to quash the subpoena on privacy grounds.C. Defendant's Citation to Non-Existent AuthorityMay Result in SanctionsAs plaintiff notes, the three cases cited to and discussedby defendant appear to be non-existent legal authority.See Opp. at 1; Mtn. at 2-3. The court is unable tolocate the cases cited by defendant. A citation toone non-existent case may be a mere mistake. Buthere, the fact that all three citations are non-existentsuggests defendant's counsel may have used artificialintelligence to draft the motion and failed to confirmthe accuracy of the citations.All counsel that appear before this court must complywith the California Rules of Professional Conduct andFederal Rules of Civil Procedure and, among otherthings, not make false statements of fact or law. See,e.g., Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.11(b)(2). Although this court has not yet enacted rulesor orders specifically addressing the use of artificialintelligence, this does not permit counsel to submit abrief with non-existent authority. See Mata v. Avianca,Inc., 678 F. Supp. 443, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (“”A fakeopinion is not ‘existing law’ and ... [a]n attempt topersuade court or oppose an adversary by relying onfake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system.”).Counsel has a duty to “read, and thereby confirm theexistence and validity of, the legal authorities on whichthey rely.” Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d. Cir.2024).The court cautions defendant that any further filingswith citations to non-existent cases may resultin sanctions. See, e.g., Park, 91 F.4th at 615-16(referring counsel to the Court's Grievance Panel forinvestigation for the submission of a brief relying onnon-existent authority); Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire &Rubber Co., 2024 WL 4882651, at *3 (E.D. Tex.Nov. 25, 2024) (sanctioning counsel for submitting abrief generated by artificial intelligence that referredto non-existent cases); Mata, 678 F. Supp. at 465-66(sanctioning attorney for, among other things, citingto fake opinions); see also Transam. Life Ins. Co.v. Williams, 2024 WL 4108005, at *2 n.3 (D. Ariz.Sept. 6, 2024) (advising defendant that she may besanctioned for any future filings with citations to non-existent cases).
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4IV. CONCLUSION*4 For the reasons stated above, defendant's motionto quash plaintiff's subpoena and request to file underseal (docket no. 14) are denied. But defendant mayproceed pseudonymously as “John Doe” throughoutthis litigation. The court therefore prohibits plaintifffrom publicly filing documents with defendant's truename and publicly disclosing defendant's true name orother identifying information, other than defendant'sIP address, unless and until the court orders otherwise.Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order onSpectrum.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 882212Footnotes1In the motion, defendant notes the motion was directed to Charter Communications (“Charter”). Mtn. at 1.Charter offers broadband services through Spectrum.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access