Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.252.130.71

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that it owns copyrights in certain adult motion pictures and that an unidentified defendant used the Internet file-sharing protocol BitTorrent to download and distribute copies of those movies without authorization. Strike 3 identified the defendant in the complaint only by the Internet Protocol (IP) address 73.252.130.71.

Strike 3 alleged that its investigation used MaxMind’s geolocation service to trace the IP address to a physical address in the Northern District of California and to identify Comcast Cable Communications LLC as the Internet service provider associated with the address. Strike 3 also alleged that its VXN Scan technology connected with the device using BitTorrent and obtained portions of files corresponding to Strike 3’s copyrighted works. The complaint alleged that the defendant had infringed 30 movies, although the opinion does not make an ultimate finding on that allegation.

Because the defendant had not yet been identified or served, Strike 3 applied for permission to serve Comcast with a subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Strike 3 represented that the subpoena would seek only the name and physical address of the person associated with the Comcast account for the specified IP address.

Early Subpoena

Under Rule 26(d)(1), discovery normally cannot begin before the Rule 26(f) conference, but a court may allow earlier discovery for good cause. The court applied factors concerning whether the defendant was likely a real person subject to suit, the steps taken to identify the defendant, whether the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss, and whether the requested discovery was likely to produce identifying information.

The court found that all four factors favored early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3’s allegations suggested that the defendant was an identifiable person who could be sued, that Strike 3 had taken sufficient steps to locate the defendant, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding the ultimate merits of the copyright case.

The court also found that Comcast was likely to possess information linking the IP address to a subscriber and that the subpoena was narrow. It determined that the need to identify the defendant and allow the case to proceed outweighed the burden or prejudice to Comcast. The court therefore granted leave to serve the limited third-party subpoena on Comcast before the Rule 26(f) conference.

Protective Order

The court separately considered whether to protect the privacy of the person Comcast identified. It found good cause because the allegations involved adult motion pictures and therefore potentially sensitive and highly personal information. The court also recognized that the Comcast subscriber might be an innocent third party or might not be the person who allegedly infringed the copyrights.

The court issued a limited protective order on its own motion. Information produced by Comcast in response to the subpoena must be treated as confidential under the restrictions applicable to material designated “Confidential” in the Northern District of California’s Model Protective Order for Standard Litigation. That treatment continues until the court rules on a motion by the defendant or another affected third party concerning continued confidentiality or permission to proceed anonymously.

The order also states that the person identified by Comcast has 30 days after receiving notice from Strike 3 to file a motion for permission to proceed anonymously. Any notice from Strike 3 must include or attach the court’s order. If identifying information is included in a request to proceed anonymously, the filing may be submitted under seal until the court has an opportunity to rule on the request.

Disposition

The court granted Strike 3’s ex parte application for leave to serve a limited, early subpoena on Comcast and issued a limited protective order under Rule 26(c). The order did not decide whether the unidentified defendant ultimately infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.

Date discrepancy

The supplied case information states a filing date of June 13, 2025, but the opinion itself is dated June 13, 2024. The opinion also refers to filings dated August and September 2024. This summary uses the date shown in the opinion’s signature block.