Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.10.234.247
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-07607
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge DeMarchi granted permission to subpoena AT&T Internet for the subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 may seek the subscriber’s name and address from AT&T Internet. AT&T Internet must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order; any disclosed identity is subject to limits on public disclosure.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 172.10.234.247, Strike 3 asked to serve AT&T Internet with a subpoena before the parties’ required early-case conference. Strike 3 said the subpoena could help identify the person or entity connected to the internet 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 a claim that could survive a request for dismissal, and showed a reasonable chance that discovery would identify the defendant. The court also noted that Strike 3 had met copyright-registration requirements.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s request. Strike 3 may subpoena AT&T Internet for the subscriber’s true name and address, but AT&T must notify the subscriber, may object or seek a protective order, and Strike 3 may not publicly disclose any identifying information without the subscriber’s consent or court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.10.234.247 · No. 5:24-cv-07607
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 18, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought an ex parte motion, meaning a request made without the opposing party participating at that stage, for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on AT&T Internet before the required Rule 26(f) conference. AT&T Internet was identified as the internet service provider for the subscriber assigned IP address 172.10.234.247.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery. The court stated that Strike 3 had: (1) identified the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity that could be sued in federal court; (2) identified steps previously taken to locate the defendant; (3) shown that its action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant so that service of process would be possible.
The court also noted that Strike 3’s application indicated that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The court cited the rule that a bare allegation that an internet subscriber is associated with an IP address connected to infringing activity is not enough by itself to state a plausible direct or contributory copyright-infringement claim. But, based on the record at this stage, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to identify the defendant.
Ruling
The court granted Strike 3’s application and ordered the following:
- Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Internet requiring it to provide the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T Internet assigned IP address 172.10.234.247. Strike 3 must attach 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 use any reasonable method, 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. - AT&T Internet may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order. - If AT&T Internet provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or leave of court.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge. The order authorized discovery to identify the subscriber; it did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.