Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 67.180.165.10
- Cisneros
- 3:25-cv-10203
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cisneros allowed a subpoena to identify the defendant but required notice, challenge time, and confidentiality.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant associated with IP address 67.180.165.10, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and any later-identified internet service provider.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 67.180.165.10, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required early case conference. The court found good cause for the request.
The court permitted Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Comcast for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena later-identified internet providers if needed. The providers must notify the subscriber, and the subscriber and provider each have 30 days to challenge the subpoena.
The court also required the provider to preserve the information, limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of it to enforcing its rights in the complaint, and directed that identifying information be filed under seal. Judge Liza A. Cisneros issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 67.180.165.10 · No. 3:25-cv-10203
- Cisneros
- Dec. 23, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application—an application made without first notifying or obtaining a response from the opposing party—for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena sought information from Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, identified as the internet service provider.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Comcast to provide the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in Comcast’s response as providing internet services to the defendant.
If Comcast qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires Comcast to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on Comcast. It 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 on that person or entity to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber timely challenges the subpoena, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until it produces the information or the court finally resolves a timely motion to quash.
Confidentiality and scope
Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information must initially be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed. After the defendant is served, the court may require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.
Disposition and classification
The order permitted pre-conference third-party discovery and set conditions for notice, challenges, preservation, use, and sealing. It did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint. This is a procedural order concerning discovery. Judge Liza A. Cisneros signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.