Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 21, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.222.129.26

Judge
Cisneros
Docket
3:24-cv-04533
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Magistrate Judge Cisneros authorized subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identifying information from internet providers.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Comcast and other identified internet-service providers. The defendant and any affected subscribers may challenge the subpoenas, and the providers must notify subscribers, preserve the information, and follow the order’s disclosure restrictions.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 73.222.129.26, Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to subpoena Comcast Cable Communications, LLC before the parties’ required discovery conference. The court found good cause for the request.

The order allows Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena other internet providers identified later. The providers must notify the subscriber, who may challenge, limit, or cancel a subpoena within 30 days. The information must be kept under seal and used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint.

The court entered the order on August 21, 2024. Magistrate Judge Cisneros also required the providers to preserve the requested information while any timely challenge is pending.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.222.129.26 · No. 3:24-cv-04533
Judge
Cisneros
Date
Aug. 21, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application asking for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, identified as the internet service provider for the internet protocol address listed in the complaint.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order permits Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 to serve a similar subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.

If Comcast qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after service on the provider, using any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.

Challenges and Use of Information

Each subscriber and internet service provider has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting, quashing, or modifying the subpoena. If a subscriber does not challenge the subpoena within that period, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until producing it to Strike 3 or until a timely motion to quash is finally resolved.

Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information must be filed provisionally under seal and not otherwise disclosed. After service on the defendant, the court may require the defendant to ask for permission to proceed anonymously.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.