Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.181.38.118
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-04531
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge DeMarchi granted Strike 3 permission to subpoena Comcast for the subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 may seek the unidentified subscriber’s name and address from Comcast. Comcast must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order; the subscriber’s identity may not be publicly disclosed without consent or court permission.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified subscriber associated with internet protocol address 69.181.38.118 and asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required early conference. Strike 3 sought the subscriber’s true name and address.
The court found good cause for early discovery. It said Strike 3 had identified the defendant specifically enough, described efforts to locate the defendant, presented an action that could withstand a motion to dismiss, and showed a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant. The court also noted that Strike 3 had satisfied copyright-registration requirements.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted the application. Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a subpoena for the subscriber’s name and address, but Comcast must notify the subscriber, who may object or seek court protection. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint and may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.181.38.118 · No. 5:24-cv-04531
- Virginia Demarchi
- Aug. 21, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast Cable Communications LLC before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena would require Comcast, the internet service provider associated with IP address 69.181.38.118, to provide the true name and address of the subscriber assigned that address.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the good-cause standard for identifying an unknown defendant through early discovery. It found that Strike 3 had shown: (1) enough specificity to establish that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) previous efforts to locate the defendant; (3) an action that could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant so service could be completed. The court also noted that Strike 3’s application indicated compliance with the copyright-registration requirements in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).
The court acknowledged that a bare allegation that someone is the registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity is not enough, by itself, to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. Nevertheless, based on the record at this early stage, it concluded that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Comcast seeking the true name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 69.181.38.118 and must attach the order to the subpoena.
Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on Comcast. Comcast may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address. Comcast 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 Comcast provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or leave of court. The order does not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.