Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.83.131.197
- 3:25-cv-07499
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court allowed a subpoena to identify the defendant, subject to notice and a chance to object.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from AT&T and other identified internet service providers. The defendant and each provider receive notice and have 30 days to challenge the subpoena. The providers must preserve the information, and any disclosed information is subject to the order’s use restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena AT&T before the parties held their required early case-management meeting. The subpoena would seek the defendant’s true name and address linked to the listed internet protocol address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process. The provider must notify the subscriber, and the subscriber or provider may challenge the subpoena within 30 days.
The court ordered that the information be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint, and that identifying information be provisionally filed under seal. The court issued this order on September 24, 2025; the opinion text does not provide a readable judge’s full name.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.83.131.197 · No. 3:25-cv-07499
- Sept. 24, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena sought information identifying the defendant associated with internet protocol address 108.83.131.197. The court identified AT&T as the internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established good cause to serve a third-party subpoena on AT&T. It allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve AT&T with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring AT&T to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The subpoena must include a copy of the order.
The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.
If AT&T qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court ordered it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). That provision permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The provider must send the defendant a copy of the order.
Notice and Challenges
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 provider may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
Each subscriber and provider has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber challenges the subpoena within that period, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until it produces the information or any timely motion to quash is finally resolved.
Use and Confidentiality of Information
Strike 3 Holdings may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. 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 seek permission to proceed anonymously.
The court ordered that the order issue. The opinion text does not provide a readable full name for the signing judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.