Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.27.25.213
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-07595
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Seeborg allowed a subpoena to identify the subscriber but required notice and privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the unidentified defendant’s name and address from AT&T and potentially other internet service providers. The John Doe subscriber receives notice and protections for anonymous participation and confidential identity information. AT&T and any other subpoenaed provider must follow the order’s notice, billing, and preservation requirements.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant whom it alleges illegally distributed its copyrighted films. Strike 3 identified an Internet Protocol address, but said AT&T could identify the account holder assigned to that address.
The court found good cause for early discovery and allowed Strike 3 to serve AT&T with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s name and address. The order also allows subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.
Judge Richard Seeborg required Strike 3 to notify the defendant that they may proceed anonymously and restricted public disclosure of identifying information. The court also required notices, redactions, sealing, information preservation, and limits on how the subpoena response may be used.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.27.25.213 · No. 3:24-cv-07595
- Richard Seeborg
- Nov. 20, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. Strike 3 alleged that the unidentified defendant illegally distributed its copyrighted pornographic films. Strike 3 had identified an Internet Protocol (IP) address, but said the internet service provider associated with that address, AT&T Inc., could identify the account holder to whom the address was assigned.
The opinion discussed criticism of Strike 3’s litigation practices, including allegations that it files many lawsuits and uses the risk of embarrassment and defense costs to encourage settlements. The court also stated that pornographic content is entitled to copyright protection. Strike 3 represented that it pursues strong cases involving illegal downloading and large-scale unauthorized distribution, and that it welcomed safeguards allowing a defendant to proceed anonymously.
Legal standard and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) permits a court to authorize discovery before the usual conference when appropriate. Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally require a showing of “good cause.” For a subpoena seeking the identity of an unidentified defendant, the court considered whether Strike 3 had identified the defendant sufficiently, described its efforts to locate the defendant, shown that the action could withstand a motion to dismiss, and shown that the discovery was reasonably likely to produce information allowing service of process.
The court concluded that Strike 3 needed the subpoena to determine the defendant’s identity and that its request satisfied those factors. The order did not decide whether the Doe defendant infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Ruling and conditions
The court granted Strike 3 leave to serve a third-party subpoena on AT&T under Rule 45. The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address for the person to whom AT&T assigned the IP address identified in Exhibit B to the complaint. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.
The court also permitted Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena. The same requirements apply to follow-on subpoenas.
Strike 3 must try to ensure that the defendant learns, at the earliest possible opportunity, that the defendant may proceed anonymously. If AT&T qualifies as a cable operator under the cited federal statute, it must send the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 must request that AT&T forward the order even if AT&T is not a cable operator; if AT&T declines, Strike 3 must serve the order on the defendant at the same time as, or before, any other service or communication with the defendant.
Strike 3 may use information obtained from the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. It may not publicly disclose that information without the court’s permission at least until the Doe defendant has had an opportunity to seek anonymous participation or further discovery has occurred. References to the defendant’s identity must be redacted and filed under seal until further order. The receiving internet provider must confer with Strike 3, may not charge in advance, and must provide specified billing information if it seeks production costs. The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while any timely motion to dismiss is pending.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.