Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.157.117
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.157.117
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-06096
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi allowed Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T for the subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe subscriber from AT&T Internet. AT&T Internet must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The subscriber’s identifying information is restricted from public disclosure absent consent or court permission.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.157.117, Strike 3 sought permission to subpoena AT&T Internet before the parties’ required early case-management conference. Strike 3 said the internet address was associated with copyright infringement and that AT&T could identify the subscriber.
The court found good cause for early discovery. It determined that Strike 3 had identified a potentially suable person or entity, described efforts to locate the defendant, presented a claim that could withstand a motion to dismiss, and showed a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant. The court also noted that Strike 3 had satisfied copyright-registration requirements.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s request. Strike 3 may serve AT&T Internet with a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address, subject to notice, objections, and possible protective-order proceedings. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce its rights in the complaint and may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.157.117 · No. 5:24-cv-06096
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 20, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on AT&T, Inc., identified in the order as “AT&T Internet,” before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena seeks the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T Internet assigned IP address 107.213.157.117.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for early discovery. It determined that Strike 3 had shown that:
- it could identify a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; - it had described steps already taken to locate the defendant; - its copyright-infringement action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and - there was a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant and make service of process possible.
The court also noted that Strike 3’s application indicated that it had met the copyright-registration requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The order stated that, once the defendant’s identity is learned, the internet address associated with the alleged infringing activity could support a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. At this stage, the court allowed discovery to determine the defendant’s identity; it did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred or whether the subscriber was liable.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve a subpoena under Rule 45 on AT&T Internet requiring it to provide the subscriber’s true name and address, and Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
AT&T Internet must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on AT&T Internet. AT&T Internet may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order, which is a court order limiting or regulating discovery.
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 Internet provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.