Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 7, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.234.208.33

Judge
Cisneros
Docket
3:25-cv-03100
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cisneros permitted subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity before the required scheduling conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the anonymous defendant’s identifying information from Astound Broadband and other identified internet service providers. The defendant and any affected provider may challenge the subpoena within 30 days, and the defendant’s identifying information is provisionally protected from disclosure.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified only by the internet protocol address 66.234.208.33 and asked to subpoena the defendant’s internet provider before the parties’ required scheduling conference. The court found good cause for the request.

The court permitted Strike 3 to serve Astound Broadband with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response. The information may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.

The order requires notice to the subscriber, gives the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and requires the provider to preserve the information. Judge Marin E. Cisneros also ordered the defendant’s identifying information to be provisionally filed under seal.

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 66.234.208.33 · No. 3:25-cv-03100
Judge
Cisneros
Date
May 7, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified in the case caption as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 66.234.208.33. Strike 3 sought information from Astound Broadband, identified as the internet service provider.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena. The order permits Strike 3 to serve Astound Broadband with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

If Astound Broadband qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The provider must serve the subscriber with the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena is served. Notice may be sent by first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address, or by another reasonable method.

Each subscriber and the provider has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If a subscriber does not challenge the subpoena during that period, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while production or any timely challenge is pending.

Sealing and effect

The defendant’s name and other identifying information must be provisionally filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed. After the defendant is served, the court may require the defendant to request permission to proceed anonymously. Judge Marin E. Cisneros entered the order on May 6, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.