Judge Grants Strike 3 Holdings Expedited Discovery to Identify Doe Defendant, But Bars Service of Process

FRESNO (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on May 11 granted Strike 3 Holdings' ex parte application for expedited discovery to identify a John Doe defendant in a copyright infringement suit, but imposed strict privacy safeguards after noting the "tenuous" assumption that the person paying for internet access is the same individual who downloaded a specific film.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Delaney ordered the defendant's internet service provider to produce the name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 76.223.248.142. However, the order explicitly prohibits formal service of process and bars the plaintiff from revealing the defendant's identity in or out of court until further permission is granted.

Strike 3 Holdings filed the complaint on April 23, 2026, alleging it holds copyrights on various adult films and that the defendant infringed those rights by anonymously downloading and distributing the content via BitTorrent. Because the plaintiff could only identify the defendant address, it sought to bypass the standard Rule 26(f) discovery conference to serve a third-party subpoena on the ISP.

Delaney applied the "good cause" standard, noting that expedited discovery is frequently permitted in infringement cases to identify Doe defendants. She found that Strike 3 had stated a prima facie claim by providing a list of downloads to the subject IP address, specifically sought only the subscriber's name and contact information, and had no alternative means to identify the individual other than through the ISP.

However, the judge emphasized that the fifth factor from the Second Circuit's Arista Records test—the defendant's expectation of privacy—weighed against granting the request without additional protections.

"Here, the limited privacy protection afforded under the Constitution must be considered for the person who will be identified by the procedure of serving a subpoena on an ISP," Delaney wrote.

The order highlighted the risks of mistaken identity in cases involving sexually explicit material, noting that the assumption that the person paying for internet access is the same individual who downloaded a single film is "tenuous."

"An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones," the order stated, quoting In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases.

Delaney warned that a wrongly identified defendant in a pornographic film case would likely face "embarrassment and reputational damage" before they could even engage counsel, creating a risk of forced settlements to avoid exposure.

To mitigate these risks, the order requires Strike 3 to serve a copy of the court's order on the identified individual within 10 days of obtaining their identity. The plaintiff is also prohibited from revealing the defendant's identity in or out of court until further permission is granted.

The judge invited both parties to an informal conference to set a schedule for the defendant to file a motion to quash the subpoena, if grounds exist, and to establish procedures for service of process. Attendance at the conference is voluntary and will not constitute a waiver of service or an appearance in the litigation.

Strike 3 must file a status report within 60 days detailing whether service of the order was effectuated, whether the defendant agreed to the conference, and the status of any potential settlement.