Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 23, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 24.7.58.230

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:25-cv-10269
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryIntellectual PropertyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge DeMarchi allowed an early subpoena to identify the internet subscriber assigned a specific IP address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings may seek the subscriber’s identity through a subpoena; Comcast must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order; the unnamed subscriber’s identity is subject to confidentiality restrictions.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a subscriber identified only by the internet protocol address 24.7.58.230 and asked to subpoena Comcast Cable Communications, LLC before the parties’ required conference about managing the case.

The court found good cause because Strike 3 had identified the defendant sufficiently, described efforts to locate the person, shown that its lawsuit could survive a request for dismissal, and shown a reasonable chance that discovery could identify the subscriber. The court also noted that Strike 3 had satisfied copyright-registration requirements.

The court granted Strike 3’s application. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi authorized a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address, required Comcast to notify the subscriber, limited Strike 3’s use of the information, and allowed Comcast to object or seek a protective order.

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 24.7.58.230 · No. 5:25-cv-10269
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Dec. 23, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Comcast was identified as the internet service provider for the subscriber assigned IP address 24.7.58.230. The defendant was named as John Doe because Strike 3 did not yet have the subscriber’s identity.

Court’s analysis

The court found good cause for early discovery under Rule 45. It determined that Strike 3 had: (1) identified the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) identified steps it had taken to locate the defendant; (3) shown that its action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant and make service possible. The court also noted that Strike 3 had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).

The court cautioned that merely alleging that someone was the registered subscriber for an IP address associated with infringing activity is not enough, by itself, to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. Even so, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use discovery at this stage to determine the defendant’s identity.

Ruling and conditions

The court granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the true name and address of the subscriber to whom Comcast assigned IP address 24.7.58.230, and it must attach the order to the subpoena.

Comcast must serve the subscriber with the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on Comcast. Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena 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. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.