Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.213.16
- Cisneros
- 3:25-cv-06473
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cisneros authorized a subpoena to identify the anonymous subscriber and allowed related discovery.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the anonymous defendant’s identifying information from Comcast and other identified service providers. The defendant and any affected subscriber may challenge the subpoena, and the provider must give notice and preserve the information.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.213.16, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. The defendant was identified only by an internet protocol address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Comcast Cable Communications, LLC for the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other identified internet-service providers, limited use of the information to enforcing the rights described in the complaint, and required notice to the subscriber.
The subscriber and the internet-service provider each have 30 days after service to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or change it. Judge Cisneros also ordered preservation of the information and provisional sealing of the defendant’s identifying information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.213.16 · No. 3:25-cv-06473
- Cisneros
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the required early meeting in a civil case where the parties generally discuss case management and discovery. The proposed subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, identified as the internet-service provider associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to serve the subpoena. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A Rule 45 subpoena is a formal demand for information from a person or entity that is not a party to the lawsuit. The subpoena must include a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Notice and challenges
If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under the cited federal statute, it must comply with that statute’s requirement for notifying the subscriber when personal identifying information is disclosed under a court order. More generally, Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after the subpoena is served. The provider may use reasonable means, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
Each subscriber and the provider has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If a subscriber does not challenge the subpoena within that period, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until production or final resolution of a timely challenge.
Confidentiality
The defendant’s name and other identifying information must be provisionally filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed. After the defendant is served, the court may require the defendant to ask for permission to proceed anonymously.
Disposition
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’ application for leave to serve the third-party subpoena and imposed the notice, challenge, preservation, use, and sealing conditions described above. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge J. Cisneros; the first name in the signature line is unclear in the provided text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.