Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 31, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 24.6.137.211

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:25-cv-10230
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge DeMarchi allowed early subpoena discovery to identify an internet subscriber in a copyright case.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.137.211 through a subpoena to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The subscriber must receive notice, and any disclosed identifying information is subject to limits on use and public disclosure.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 24.6.137.211 and asked to serve Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with a subpoena before the parties’ required scheduling conference.

The court found good cause for the early discovery. It said Strike 3 had sufficiently identified a potentially suable defendant, described efforts to locate the person, presented a claim that could survive dismissal, and showed a reasonable chance that discovery could identify the subscriber. The court also noted that Strike 3 had met copyright-registration requirements.

Judge DeMarchi granted Strike 3’s application. The order allows Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast for the subscriber’s true name and address, requires Comcast to notify the subscriber, and limits use and public disclosure of the information.

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 24.6.137.211 · No. 5:25-cv-10230
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Dec. 31, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC before the parties held the conference generally required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Comcast was identified as the internet service provider for the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 24.6.137.211.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery. 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 previously taken to locate the defendant; (3) presented an action that could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant and permit service of process. The court also stated that Strike 3’s application indicated that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).

The court noted that a bare allegation that someone is the registered subscriber of an Internet Protocol address associated with infringing activity is not enough, by itself, to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. But, at this stage and based on the record presented, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.

Order

The court granted Strike 3’s application and allowed it to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Comcast seeking the true name and address of the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 24.6.137.211. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

Comcast must serve the subscriber with a copy of the subpoena and the 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 information produced under 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 that information without the subscriber’s consent or court permission.

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.