Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 7, 2026

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 98.51.89.194

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:26-cv-07729
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Hixson allowed an early subpoena to identify the defendant through Comcast, with notice and confidentiality protections.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s name and address from Comcast and potentially another identified internet-service provider. The defendant and Comcast receive notice and may challenge the subpoena; the defendant’s identity is subject to confidentiality and sealing restrictions.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with a subpoena before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The subpoena seeks the name and address of the defendant associated with the listed internet address.

The court found good cause for the early subpoena and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve it on Comcast. The order also permits subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through Comcast’s response.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson required notice to the subscriber, gave the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and restricted public disclosure of the information while protecting the defendant’s opportunity to seek anonymous litigation.

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 98.51.89.194 · No. 3:26-cv-07729
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
Aug. 7, 2026

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 subpoena before the parties’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, identified as the internet service provider associated with the defendant’s internet address.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the early subpoena. It granted permission to serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Comcast to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom Comcast assigned the internet address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint. Strike 3 Holdings must attach the order to the subpoena.

The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in Comcast’s response as providing internet services to the defendant.

Notice and Challenges

If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must send the defendant a copy of the order as required by 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on Comcast. The subscriber and Comcast each have 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 the subscriber does not challenge the subpoena within that period, Comcast has 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3 Holdings.

Comcast must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or the final resolution of a timely motion to quash. Strike 3 Holdings may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. It may not publicly disclose the information without the court’s permission at least until the defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously or further discovery has occurred. References to the defendant’s identity must remain redacted and filed under seal until further order.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s ex parte motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference. The order addressed early discovery and subpoena procedures; it did not decide the underlying claims or reveal the defendant’s identity.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.