Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:19-cv-08239
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast for the subscriber’s identity before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity of the John Doe subscriber from Comcast. Comcast must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order; the subscriber’s disclosed identity is subject to use and disclosure restrictions.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213, Strike 3 asked to serve Comcast with a subpoena before the parties held their required case-planning conference. Strike 3 sought the name and address of the subscriber assigned the listed internet protocol address.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It determined that Strike 3 had identified a potentially suable defendant, described steps it had taken to locate that person, presented an action that could withstand a motion to dismiss at this stage, and showed a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant. The court also noted that identifying the subscriber alone would not establish a valid direct claim.
The court granted Strike 3’s request. It allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena for the subscriber’s true name and address, required Comcast to notify the subscriber within 30 days, and limited Strike 3’s use and public disclosure of any information produced. Comcast could object or seek a protective order. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213 · No. 5:19-cv-08239
- Virginia Demarchi
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve Comcast Cable, the internet service provider associated with the subscriber, with a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena sought the true name and address of the subscriber to whom Comcast assigned IP address 76.102.26.213.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause for early discovery. Applying the standards cited in the order, it found that Strike 3 had: (1) identified the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) identified prior steps taken to locate the defendant; (3) presented an action that could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so service of process could occur.
The court also stated that, after Strike 3 learned the defendant’s identity, Strike 3 could not rely only on an allegation that the defendant was the registered subscriber of an internet protocol address associated with infringing activity to state a plausible claim for direct liability. At this stage, however, and based on the record presented, the court concluded that Strike 3 could serve limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application and ordered the following:
- Strike 3 could serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Comcast seeking the true name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. - Comcast had to serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena was served on Comcast. Comcast could use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address. - Strike 3 could use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. - Comcast could object to the subpoena and could seek a protective order. - If Comcast produced the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 could not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.
The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi on January 21, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.