Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.207.12.247
- Cisneros
- 3:24-cv-09380
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cisneros allowed a subpoena to identify the defendant but required notice, privacy protections, and an opportunity to challenge it.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unnamed defendant associated with IP address 98.207.12.247, Comcast Cable, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 98.207.12.247, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Comcast Cable before the parties’ required initial conference. The request sought the defendant’s name and address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast with a subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process, if needed.
The order required notice to the subscriber, allowed the subscriber or provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and required the provider to preserve the information. Judge Lisa J. Cisneros also ordered that identifying information be filed under seal for now.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.207.12.247 · No. 3:24-cv-09380
- Cisneros
- Feb. 6, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application, meaning a request made without first giving the opposing party the usual opportunity to respond, for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Comcast to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.
If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under the cited federal statute, the order required it to follow the statute’s notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order. More generally, the internet service provider had to serve the subscriber with copies of both the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena was served. The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service on them to file a motion challenging, quashing, or modifying the subpoena.
If the 30-day challenge period expired without a motion by a subscriber, the provider would have 10 additional days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber. The provider also had to preserve the subpoenaed information while production or any timely challenge remained unresolved.
Limits and privacy protections
Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information had to be filed provisionally under seal and could not otherwise be disclosed. After service on the defendant, the court stated that it might require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.
The order concerned discovery of the defendant’s identity and did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.