STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. DOE

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference 4 , is GRANTED. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/20/2018. (lcrdm1, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 18-1424 (RDM)

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address
69.140.196.105,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a third party subpoena prior to a
Rule 26(f) conference. See Dkt. 4.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings LLC, is the owner of certain motion pictures involved in this
action. See Dkt. 1. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant—who is identified by an IP
address—is “committing rampant and wholesale copyright infringement by downloading Strike
3’s motion pictures” and “distributing them to others.” Id. at 1–2 (Compl. ¶ 4). Plaintiff seeks
statutory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting continued infringement. Id.
at 7–8 (Compl. ¶ 39).
Because Plaintiff is aware of Defendant’s IP address and Internet Service Provider but
not his or her identity, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Defendant’s ISP—
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC—that would require Comcast to identify Defendant. Dkt.
4-5 at 4–5. Because Defendant has not been named or served, no response has been filed to
Plaintiff’s motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
A party ordinarily “may not seek discovery from any source” before a conference under
Rule 26(f) unless “authorized by . . . a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). “To determine
whether to authorize discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference in a particular case, this district
has applied a ‘good cause’ standard.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 64 F. Supp. 3d 47, 49 (D.D.C.
2014). Good cause to take discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference exists where the
discovery is necessary “before th[e] suit can progress further.” Arista Records LLC v. Does 1–
19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, a plaintiff
seeking discovery of the identities of unknown defendants “must have at least a good faith belief
that such discovery will enable it to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendants.” AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–1058, 752 F.3d 990, 995 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the relevant legal authorities and Plaintiff’s pleadings, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that good cause exists to take discovery prior to the Rule
26(f) conference. First, Plaintiff must serve Defendant before this lawsuit can progress, but, in
order to effect service, Plaintiff needs to know Defendant’s identity. See Arista Records LLC,
551 F. Supp. 2d at 6; see also Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 15-986, 2015 WL 5173890 at *1
(“[I]t is questionable whether the Court could dismiss the case without allowing Plaintiff the
opportunity for discovery of Defendant’s identity.”). Second, Plaintiff has established a good
faith basis for believing that Defendant is a District of Columbia resident. To establish personal
jurisdiction over a defendant under the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute, Plaintiff must
demonstrate that the defendant either is a “resident[] of the District of Columbia” or “at least

2

downloaded the copyrighted work in the District.” AF Holdings, 752 F.3d at 996. Plaintiff
alleges that “Defendant used an Internet Protocol address (‘IP address’) traced to a physical
address located within this District” using “geolocation technology.” Dkt. 1 at 2 (Compl. ¶¶ 8–
9); see AF Holdings, 752 F.3d at 996 (holding that “geolocation services” are “sufficiently
accurate” to establish “some basis for determining whether a particular subscriber might live in
the District of Columbia”). Accordingly, pursuant to its “broad discretion to . . . dictate the
sequence of discovery,” Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501, 507 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted), the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena
on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, for the purposes of identifying Defendant’s identity
prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, Dkt. 4.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge

Date: July 20, 2018

3