Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 17, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 24.130.191.32

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:25-cv-08360
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero allowed subpoenas to identify the subscriber assigned the listed internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.191.32. Comcast and any other identified internet service providers must provide notice, preserve responsive information, and may be required to disclose it unless a subscriber or provider timely challenges the subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified only as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 24.130.191.32. It asked for permission to subpoena Comcast Cable Communications, LLC before the parties’ required early case conference so it could learn the defendant’s name and address.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena seeking that information. The order also allows subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response. The providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge the subpoenas within 30 days.

Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order on October 17, 2025. The order requires providers to preserve the requested information, permits disclosure under the federal cable-privacy law, limits Strike 3’s use of the information to protecting its copyright rights, and requires identifying information in filings to be kept confidential.

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 24.130.191.32 · No. 3:25-cv-08360
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
Oct. 17, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application—an application made without a regular hearing involving the opposing party—for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena would be directed to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and would seek the true name and address of the defendant associated with IP address 24.130.191.32.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause and allowed it to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena must include a copy of the order. The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant.

The court stated that the authorized subpoenas qualify as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551. Each internet service provider must notify each subscriber whose information is sought by providing the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after being served. The subscriber or provider then has 30 days after service on that person or entity 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 give Strike 3 the responsive information.

Additional Conditions

Any provider receiving a subpoena must preserve the requested information until it gives the information to Strike 3 or a timely motion to quash is finally resolved. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Information identifying any current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal and may not otherwise be disclosed.

Disposition and Effect

The court granted Strike 3 permission to pursue early third-party discovery for the defendant’s identity and address. The order did not decide whether the defendant infringed copyright or resolve the underlying lawsuit.

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.