Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.223.6.126
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-07498
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge DeMarchi granted permission to subpoena Comcast for the subscriber’s identity before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the unidentified subscriber’s name and address from Comcast through a Rule 45 subpoena. Comcast must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The subscriber’s identity must remain nonpublic absent consent or court permission.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified subscriber associated with internet protocol address 73.223.6.126 and asked to obtain the subscriber’s name and address from Comcast Cable Communications, LLC before the parties’ usual discovery conference.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It said Strike 3 had identified the defendant specifically enough, described efforts to locate the defendant, presented an action that could survive a motion to dismiss, and showed a reasonable chance of identifying the defendant through discovery. The court did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a subpoena for the subscriber’s true name and address, but Comcast must notify the subscriber, may object or seek a protective order, and the information cannot be publicly disclosed without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.223.6.126 · No. 5:25-cv-07498
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with a subpoena before the parties held the conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Comcast is the internet service provider associated with the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 73.223.6.126. Strike 3 sought the subscriber’s true name and address so it could identify the defendant.
Court’s reasoning
The court found good cause for early third-party discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had shown: (1) enough identifying information for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity that could be sued in federal court; (2) earlier efforts to locate the defendant; (3) that the action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so service of process could occur. The court also noted Strike 3’s representation that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements for bringing the lawsuit.
The court cautioned that merely alleging that someone is the registered subscriber for an internet protocol address associated with infringing activity is not enough, by itself, to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. Nevertheless, based on the record at this stage, the court allowed limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity. The order did not decide whether the subscriber committed copyright infringement.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s ex parte motion, meaning a motion decided without advance participation by the opposing party at that stage. Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding Comcast to provide the subscriber’s true name and address, and Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.
Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on Comcast. Comcast may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address. Strike 3 may use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Comcast may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order. If Comcast provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Concurrent Venturesv. Advanced Micro
- Thermaduct, LLC. v. Albers Mechanical Contractors, Inc. d/b/a Ducts and Cleats…Sep 2026
- Office Create Corporation v. COKeM International Ltd., Planet Entertainment LLC…Sep 2026
- Concurrent Venturesv. Advanced Micro
- Mattson Technologyv. Applied Materials
- Concurrent Venturesv. Advanced Micro