Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.133.135.222
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-03869
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Chen granted Strike 3 permission to subpoena Comcast for Doe’s identity before ordinary discovery began.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Comcast Cable, subject to notice, confidentiality, sealing, and preservation requirements. John Doe receives notice and may seek dismissal or permission to proceed anonymously. Comcast must follow the order’s subpoena and preservation requirements.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for allegedly infringing 38 of its adult motion pictures through the BitTorrent protocol. Because Strike 3 knew only the internet protocol address assigned to Doe, it asked to serve Comcast Cable with a subpoena before the parties’ required initial discovery conference.
The court found good cause for the early discovery and granted Strike 3’s application. The subpoena may seek Doe’s true name and address, but Strike 3 must follow notice and confidentiality requirements, including giving Doe a copy of the order through Comcast or directly, protecting the information, and filing identity references under seal.
Judge Edward Chen emphasized that allowing the subpoena did not prevent Doe from seeking dismissal or prejudge such a motion. The court also required Strike 3 to consider its obligation to continue the lawsuit under the rule requiring reasonable support for court filings, and required Comcast to preserve subpoenaed information if Doe timely seeks dismissal.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.133.135.222 · No. 3:25-cv-03869
- Edward Chen
- June 12, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for copyright infringement. Strike 3 alleged that Doe used the BitTorrent protocol to infringe 38 of Strike 3’s adult motion pictures. Strike 3 had identified Doe through an internet protocol address but sought the subscriber’s true name and address from Comcast Cable, the internet service provider.
Strike 3 filed an application for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The court reviewed the application, supporting declarations, and complaint. It found that Strike 3 had sufficiently shown an entitlement to the requested early discovery and endorsed a 2023 decision by Judge Seeborg in a prior related proceeding.
Ruling
The court found good cause to serve Comcast Cable with a subpoena and granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 may serve a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the true name and address of the person to whom Comcast assigned the internet protocol address identified in Exhibit A to the complaint. Strike 3 must attach this order and Judge Seeborg’s decision to the subpoena.
If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must send Doe a copy of the order as required by 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Strike 3 must also ask Comcast to forward the order to the subscriber even if Comcast does not qualify as a cable operator. If Comcast declines, Strike 3 must serve Doe with the order at the same time as, or before, any other service or communication to Doe. Strike 3 must file proof of its request or an affidavit stating that Comcast forwarded the order before Strike 3 communicates with Doe.
Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. It may not publicly disclose the information without the court’s permission, at least until Doe has had an opportunity to seek permission to proceed anonymously or further discovery has occurred. References to Doe’s identity must be redacted and filed under seal until further notice. Strike 3 must first file an affidavit confirming that it proposed confidentiality to Doe, including relevant communications about any proposed confidentiality agreement.
Comcast, and any other internet service provider receiving a subpoena under the order, must preserve subpoenaed information while any timely motion to dismiss is being resolved.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The court stated that authorizing early discovery did not prevent Doe from filing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint adequately states a legal claim. The court also stated that it was not prejudging such a motion. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court noted that merely alleging that a person subscribed to an internet protocol address associated with infringement may be insufficient to establish direct or contributory infringement. The order therefore authorized discovery but did not decide whether Doe infringed copyright or whether Strike 3’s complaint would survive dismissal. Judge Edward Chen also advised Strike 3 that, after learning Doe’s name and address, it would have an obligation under Rule 11 to determine whether continuing the lawsuit was proper.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.