Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 20, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.35.60.227

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:25-cv-04750
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Hixson granted permission to subpoena Comcast for the defendant’s identity before discovery begins.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.35.60.227, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and any other internet service provider identified in response to the subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified by an internet address and asked to subpoena the internet provider before the parties held their required early case conference. The court found good cause for allowing that request.

The court authorized subpoenas to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and, if identified, other internet providers to obtain the defendant’s true name and address. The providers must notify the subscriber, who may challenge the subpoena within 30 days. The information must be preserved and kept under seal, and Strike 3 may use it only to protect or enforce the rights described in its complaint.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted Strike 3’s request for early third-party subpoenas. This order addressed discovery procedures and did not decide the underlying claims.

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 98.35.60.227 · No. 3:25-cv-04750
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
June 20, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the required early meeting about the case’s discovery plan. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 98.35.60.227.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, the internet service provider identified in the order. The court authorized a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the true name and address of the defendant assigned the internet address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized a Rule 45 subpoena to any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.

Notice and challenges

If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under the cited federal statute, it must send the defendant a copy of the order. More generally, the provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on the provider.

The subscriber and the provider each have 30 days after service on that person or entity to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to give Strike 3 the responsive information. The provider must preserve the information while a timely challenge is pending or until the information is delivered to Strike 3.

Confidentiality limits

Strike 3 may use information produced under the subpoena only to protect or enforce the rights described in its complaint. It may not publicly disclose the information without the court’s permission, at least until the Doe defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously or further discovery has occurred. References to the defendant’s identity must be redacted and filed under seal until further order.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted the ex parte motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order concerns early discovery and does not resolve the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.