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 73.92.202.152

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:25-cv-04749
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Tigar allowed a subpoena to identify the subscriber linked to an internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe subscriber associated with IP address 73.92.202.152, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 73.92.202.152, Strike 3 asked to serve an internet provider with a subpoena before the parties’ required early case conference. The court found good cause for the request.

The court allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast Cable Communications, LLC for the defendant’s true name and address, and to subpoena another internet provider identified through that process. The providers must notify affected subscribers, who then have 30 days to challenge the subpoenas. The court also ordered that identifying information remain confidential unless the subscriber has an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously.

Judge Jon Tigar granted Strike 3’s application for permission to serve the subpoenas. The order allowed early information gathering but did not decide whether the subscriber infringed Strike 3’s copyright.

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 73.92.202.152 · No. 4:25-cv-04749
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
June 20, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requested subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, identified in the order as the internet service provider. Strike 3 sought the defendant’s true name and address associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint and case caption.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena under Rule 45. The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and required Strike 3 to attach the order to the subpoena. Strike 3 may also serve the same type of subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant.

Notice and challenges

If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under federal law, it must send the defendant a copy of the order. Each provider must serve affected subscribers with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after being served. Each subscriber and provider then has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. If no challenge is filed during that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber.

Confidentiality

The court issued a limited protective order because the subscriber might not be the person who infringed Strike 3’s copyright and because of the potential embarrassment from being publicly accused of illegally downloading adult motion pictures. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 must remain confidential and may not be publicly disclosed until the defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. The protective order expires if the defendant does not file that request within 30 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3.

Disposition

Judge Jon Tigar granted the application for permission to serve the third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order addressed discovery and confidentiality only; it did not decide whether the defendant infringed Strike 3’s copyright.

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.