Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 29, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.231.183.96

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:24-cv-06805
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Hixson allowed an early subpoena to identify the internet subscriber linked to an IP address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Comcast and potentially other internet service providers. The John Doe subscriber may receive notice and may challenge the subpoena, while the providers must preserve and handle the information under the order’s procedures.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber associated with IP address 73.231.183.96 and asked to obtain the subscriber’s identifying information before the usual discovery conference.

The court found good cause to let Strike 3 serve Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with a subpoena requiring the true name and address of the defendant assigned that IP address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the responses.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted the application and imposed notice, preservation, confidentiality, and challenge procedures. The subscriber and provider each have 30 days after service to contest the subpoena, and the disclosed information may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.

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 73.231.183.96 · No. 3:24-cv-06805
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
Oct. 29, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application, without advance notice to the opposing party, for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant is identified in the case caption as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 73.231.183.96. The requested subpoena sought information from Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, the internet service provider identified in the order.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve an early subpoena. It authorized a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena commanding the internet service provider to provide the defendant’s true name and address, based on the IP address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized a Rule 45 subpoena to any other internet service provider identified in a response as providing internet services to the defendant. If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must send the defendant a copy of the order as required by 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B).

Notice and challenges

The provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on the provider. The subscriber and the provider each have 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the information while a timely challenge is pending or until it delivers the information to Strike 3.

Confidentiality

Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. It may not publicly disclose the information without the court’s permission, at least until the Doe defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously or further discovery has occurred. References to the defendant’s identity must be redacted and filed under seal until further notice.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered the order on October 29, 2024. The order concerns early discovery and the procedures for obtaining and protecting identifying information; it does not state a ruling on the underlying claims against the subscriber.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.