Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 19, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.217.54.178

Judge
Sallie Kim
Docket
3:25-cv-03887
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Magistrate Judge Kim authorized early subpoenas to identify the subscriber behind an IP address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; the unidentified subscriber assigned the listed IP address; AT&T Inc.; and any other internet service provider that receives an authorized subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.217.54.178, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early meeting about the case. The subpoena seeks the subscriber’s true name and address from AT&T Inc., the internet service provider.

The court found good cause and authorized the subpoena, as well as later subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the responses. Providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge or seek to change the subpoenas within 30 days. If no challenge is filed, the provider must produce the requested information within 10 days and preserve it while any timely challenge is resolved.

The order also limits use of the information to protecting Strike 3 Holdings’ rights under the Copyright Act and requires personal identifying information to be filed under seal. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued the order on May 19, 2025.

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 76.217.54.178 · No. 3:25-cv-03887
Judge
Sallie Kim
Date
May 19, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested subpoena was directed to AT&T Inc., identified as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the IP address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established good cause to serve the subpoena early. The order authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve AT&T with a subpoena under Rule 45, provided that the order is attached. It also authorizes subpoenas to any other internet service provider identified in a response as providing internet service to one of the defendants.

The order states that the authorized subpoenas qualify as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551, provided the subscriber receives notice. Each provider has 30 days after service to notify each subscriber whose information is requested by providing the subpoena and this order. Each subscriber and provider then has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or modify it. If that period expires without a challenge, the provider has 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3 Holdings.

Each provider must preserve the requested information until it provides the information or a timely challenge is finally resolved. Strike 3 Holdings may use disclosed information only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Any name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal, with redacted versions filed publicly. The plaintiff must continue using the existing case caption. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued the order dated May 19, 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.