Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.234.3

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:25-cv-01604
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi granted Strike 3’s motion to serve Comcast a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s identity.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the unidentified subscriber’s name and address from Comcast. Comcast must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The subscriber’s identity is protected from public disclosure absent consent or court permission.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified subscriber associated with Internet Protocol address 24.5.234.3 and asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required early case meeting. Strike 3 said the subpoena could help identify the defendant in a copyright case.

The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It noted that an Internet subscriber’s connection to an address associated with alleged infringement, by itself, does not establish a sufficient copyright claim, but said limited discovery could be used to learn the potential defendant’s identity.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 may subpoena Comcast for the subscriber’s name and address, while Comcast may object or seek a protective order; any disclosed identity may not be publicly revealed without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission.

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 24.5.234.3 · No. 5:25-cv-01604
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Feb. 28, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with a subpoena before the parties held the conference normally required at the beginning of a federal lawsuit. Comcast was identified as the internet service provider for the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 24.5.234.3.

Court’s analysis

The court found good cause for the requested early discovery. It said Strike 3 had shown that:

- it could identify a real person or entity who could potentially be sued in federal court; - it had taken earlier steps to locate the unidentified defendant; - its claims could withstand a motion to dismiss; and - there was a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so that service of process would be possible.

The court also noted that Strike 3 had indicated it satisfied the copyright-registration requirements for filing an infringement lawsuit. At the same time, the court recognized that merely alleging that a defendant was the subscriber assigned an Internet Protocol address connected with infringing activity is not enough, by itself, to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. The court nevertheless concluded that, at this stage and on the record presented, Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the potential defendant’s identity.

Order

The court granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the true name and address of the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 24.5.234.3, and it must attach the order to the subpoena.

Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on Comcast. Comcast may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.

Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Comcast may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order. If Comcast discloses the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.

This order allows limited discovery to identify the defendant; it does not decide whether copyright infringement occurred or whether the unidentified subscriber is liable.

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.