Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.234.180.55

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application—an application decided without the usual participation of the opposing party—for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider associated with the internet protocol address 98.234.180.55. The defendant was named as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 98.234.180.55.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to serve a third-party subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings was required to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.

Notice and Challenge Procedures

If Comcast qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of subscriber information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. Comcast was required to serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after service on Comcast, using any reasonable means, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.

Each subscriber and the internet service provider had 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber timely challenged the subpoena, the provider would have 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider was required to preserve the subpoenaed information until production or final resolution of a timely motion to quash.

Limits on Disclosure

Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information were provisionally required to be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed. After service on the defendant, the court stated that it might require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.

Disposition

The order authorized the requested third-party subpoena process and set conditions for notice, challenges, preservation, disclosure, and sealing. It did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint. The order was signed by A J. CISNEROS, United States Magistrate Judge.