Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 98.35.35.239

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with Internet Protocol address 98.35.35.239.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that a copy of the order be attached. The court also authorized subpoenas to any other Internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing Internet services to the defendant.

The order 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 identifying information is sought within 30 days after being served, using any reasonable method, including first-class or overnight mail to the subscriber’s last known address.

Each subscriber and Internet service provider 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 produce the responsive information. Providers must preserve the subpoenaed information until they deliver it to Strike 3 Holdings or until a timely motion to quash is finally resolved.

Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3 Holdings’ rights under the Copyright Act. Information concerning any current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal and may not otherwise be disclosed. The judge’s signature identifies the judge as Spero, but the full first name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.

What the Order Did Not Decide

This discovery order identified procedures for obtaining the subscriber’s identity. It did not decide whether the defendant infringed copyright or resolve the underlying claims.