Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.149.252.142
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-03935
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge DeMarchi allowed Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T for the subscriber’s identity before the Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the unidentified subscriber’s name and address from AT&T Internet. The subscriber receives notice and may benefit from the limits on disclosure, while AT&T may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified subscriber associated with internet protocol address 99.149.252.142 and asked to subpoena AT&T Internet for the subscriber’s name and address before the parties’ required case-planning conference.
The court found good cause because Strike 3 had shown that the defendant could be identified, that it had taken steps to locate the defendant, that its lawsuit could survive a motion to dismiss, and that discovery was reasonably likely to identify the defendant. The court also noted that merely being the subscriber assigned an internet protocol address does not by itself establish copyright infringement.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve the subpoena, but AT&T must notify the subscriber, may object or seek a protective order, and Strike 3 may not publicly disclose identifying information without the subscriber’s consent or court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.149.252.142 · No. 5:24-cv-03935
- Virginia Demarchi
- July 31, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve AT&T Internet, the internet service provider for the subscriber associated with IP address 99.149.252.142, with a subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the subscriber’s true name and address.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for early third-party discovery. It said Strike 3 had shown that: (1) the defendant was described specifically enough for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) Strike 3 had identified steps it previously took to locate the defendant; (3) the lawsuit could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) discovery was reasonably likely to identify the defendant so that service of process would be possible. The court also said Strike 3’s application indicated that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements for starting a copyright-infringement lawsuit.
The court noted that a plaintiff cannot rely only on an allegation that someone is the registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. But, based on the record at this stage, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s ex parte application for leave to serve a third-party subpoena. Strike 3 may serve AT&T Internet with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 99.149.252.142, and it must attach the order to the subpoena.
AT&T Internet must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after AT&T receives the subpoena. AT&T may use reasonable methods, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address. AT&T may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. If AT&T provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court. The order did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.