Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.3.181.110
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-03925
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam authorized a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s name and address from Comcast.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Comcast and other identified internet providers. John Doe and any affected subscribers receive notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena, while the providers must follow the order’s notice, production, and confidentiality requirements.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to serve Comcast before the parties’ initial required meeting about the case. The order does not decide whether John Doe infringed any copyright.
The court found good cause and granted Strike 3 permission to serve Comcast with a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified through Comcast’s response. The order requires notice to affected subscribers, gives each subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and limits use of any information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also ordered that any identifying information released remain confidential until the subscriber has an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. The order grants Strike 3’s application for permission to serve the third-party subpoena.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.3.181.110 · No. 4:24-cv-03925
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 31, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 107.3.181.110. Strike 3 applied without advance notice to the opposing party for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena would be served on Comcast Cable, the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the person to whom Comcast assigned the internet address identified in the complaint and case caption.
Court’s reasoning and order
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to obtain the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court granted the application and authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with the subpoena, provided that Strike 3 attaches the order. Strike 3 may also serve a similar subpoena on any other internet provider identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant.
If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with the notice provision in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure under a court order if the subscriber is notified. Each provider has 30 days after service to notify each subscriber whose information is sought by providing the subpoena and this order. Each subscriber and provider then has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no challenge is filed during that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.
Confidentiality and disposition
Because the subscriber may not be the person who allegedly infringed Strike 3’s copyright, and because of the potential embarrassment from a public accusation involving adult motion pictures, the court issued a limited protective order. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 must remain confidential until the defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the defendant does not file that request within 30 days after the information is disclosed, the limited protective order expires.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that Strike 3’s ex parte application for leave to serve a third-party subpoena be granted. The order resolves only the early discovery request and does not state a ruling on the underlying copyright allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.