Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.42.218.237
- William Orrick
- 3:25-cv-01636
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Orrick allowed a narrow subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain a subpoena seeking the anonymous defendant’s name and address from Comcast Cable. The anonymous defendant receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena or seek anonymous treatment, while Comcast must preserve the information and follow the order’s notification and production requirements.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an anonymous defendant identified by an internet protocol address, alleging copyright infringement. It asked the court for permission to subpoena the defendant’s internet service provider, Comcast Cable, for the defendant’s name and address.
The court found good cause based on Strike 3’s sworn submissions and allowed the subpoena under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena may seek only the defendant’s name and address. Comcast must notify the defendant, who has 30 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously.
The court also entered protections limiting use and public disclosure of the identifying information. Judge William H. Orrick granted Strike 3’s application for leave to serve the early subpoena, subject to those terms.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.42.218.237 · No. 3:25-cv-01636
- William Orrick
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the anonymous defendant infringed its copyrights. The defendant was identified in the case by the internet protocol address 98.42.218.237. Strike 3 asked, without advance notice to the defendant, for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider, Comcast Cable.
The requested subpoena sought only the name and address associated with the identified internet protocol address. Strike 3’s submissions asserted that it owned the works at issue, that at least one work had been infringed, that the court had personal jurisdiction based on geolocation of the address, and that the subpoena was reasonably likely to identify the defendant and facilitate service of the lawsuit.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause to allow the early subpoena under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It relied on Strike 3’s sworn submissions and found that the information could be deleted without preservation, that no other reasonable way to identify the defendant remained because Strike 3 had exhausted other avenues, and that the request was narrowly tailored.
The court noted that the complaint alleged infringement involving 69 movies, but the declarations were inconsistent about how many files were allegedly infringed. The order nevertheless authorized the narrow request for identifying information.
Order
The court granted leave for Strike 3 to immediately serve Comcast Cable with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only the defendant’s true name and address associated with the identified internet protocol address. Comcast must serve the defendant with the subpoena and order within 15 days after being served. The defendant then has 30 days after service by Comcast to challenge the subpoena by asking the court to quash or modify it, or to ask to proceed anonymously.
If the defendant does not challenge the subpoena within that period, Comcast must provide the requested information to Strike 3 within 10 days after the challenge period ends. Comcast must preserve the information until producing it or until the court rules on a challenge.
Judge William H. Orrick also entered a protective order. Strike 3 may use the information only to prosecute this case and may not disclose it to third parties without court permission. Any public filing identifying the defendant must redact the identifying information, with an unredacted version filed under seal under the court’s local rules. The protective order remains in effect until the court dissolves it.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.