Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.33.80.124
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-06821
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge DeMarchi granted early discovery allowing a subpoena to identify the internet subscriber linked to an IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the unidentified subscriber’s name and address from Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Comcast must notify the subscriber and may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 98.33.80.124 concerns Strike 3’s request to subpoena Comcast Cable Communications, LLC before the parties held a required discovery conference. Strike 3 sought the subscriber’s name and address for the IP address identified in the case.
The court found that Strike 3 showed good cause for early discovery. It found that Strike 3 had sufficiently identified a potentially suable defendant, described efforts to locate that person, presented a claim that could survive an initial challenge, and showed a reasonable chance that discovery would identify the defendant. The court also noted Strike 3’s compliance with copyright-registration requirements.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a subpoena requiring the subscriber’s name and address, but Comcast must notify the subscriber, and the subscriber may receive notice and challenge the subpoena. Strike 3 may use any disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint and may not publicly disclose the information without the subscriber’s consent or court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.33.80.124 · No. 5:24-cv-06821
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 23, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. Comcast was identified as the internet service provider for the subscriber assigned IP address 98.33.80.124. The requested subpoena was intended to obtain the subscriber’s true name and address.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had shown that:
- it had identified the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity who could potentially be sued in federal court; - it had described steps taken to locate the defendant; - its action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and - there was a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so service of process could occur.
The court also noted that Strike 3’s application indicated compliance with the copyright-registration requirement in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The court stated that, at this stage and on the record presented, Strike 3 could use discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
Order
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s application and ordered the following:
- Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Comcast to provide the true name and address of the subscriber to whom Comcast assigned IP address 98.33.80.124. Strike 3 must attach a copy of 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 provide notice by reasonable means, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
- Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
- Comcast may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order, which is a court order limiting or preventing disclosure.
If Comcast provides the subscriber’s identity to Strike 3, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court. The order grants early discovery and does not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.