Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.234.254.79

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:25-cv-06468
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Westmore allowed subpoenas to identify an IP-address subscriber, subject to notice and challenge procedures.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the subscriber’s name and address from AT&T Internet and other identified internet service providers. The JOHN DOE subscriber and any provider receiving a subpoena may receive notice and may challenge the subpoena within the stated deadlines.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 162.234.254.79 and asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early conference. The subpoena sought the subscriber’s true name and address from AT&T Internet.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T and any later-identified internet provider for that information. Providers must notify the subscriber, and the subscriber or provider has 30 days to challenge the subpoena. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to produce the information.

Judge Andis A. Westmore also required providers to preserve the information, limited its use to protecting Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act, and required documents containing identifying information to be filed under seal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.234.254.79 · No. 4:25-cv-06468
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
Aug. 25, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte motion seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the required early meeting in a federal civil case to discuss preparation and discovery. Strike 3 sought information from AT&T Internet, identified as the initial internet service provider, concerning the subscriber to whom it assigned IP address 162.234.254.79.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve AT&T with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking only the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant. The order treats the authorized subpoenas as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551, provided the subscriber receives notice.

Notice and Challenges

Each provider has 30 days after service to give the affected subscriber a copy of the subpoena and this order. Each subscriber and provider then has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If that period expires without a challenge, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.

Providers must preserve the subpoenaed information until they deliver it to Strike 3 or until a timely motion to quash is finally resolved.

Limits on Disclosure and Filing

Information disclosed in response to a subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Documents containing the name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal, following the procedure in Civil Local Rule 79-5. Public redacted filings should redact only the defendant’s name and other personal identifying information.

Effect of the Order

The order authorizes early discovery to identify the subscriber associated with the specified IP address; it does not decide the underlying copyright dispute. Judge Andis A. Westmore signed the order on August 25, 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.