Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 22, 2020

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.70.230

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:19-cv-08231
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Westmore allowed subpoenas seeking the subscriber’s identity for a copyright-related case.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, the unidentified subscriber associated with IP address 24.130.70.230, Comcast Cable, and any other Internet service providers identified in response to the subpoenas.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.70.230 concerns Strike 3’s request to identify an unknown defendant linked to that Internet address.

The court found good cause to allow Strike 3 to serve Comcast Cable, and potentially other identified Internet providers, with subpoenas seeking only the defendant’s name and address. Providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge the subpoenas within 30 days.

Judge Kandis Westmore ordered providers to preserve the information, required identifying documents to be filed under seal, and limited use of any disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act.

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 24.130.70.230 · No. 4:19-cv-08231
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
Jan. 22, 2020

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties held the required initial conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought information identifying the defendant associated with Internet Protocol address 24.130.70.230.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve Comcast Cable, identified as the initial Internet service provider. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena requesting only the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other Internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing Internet service to the defendant.

Notice and challenges

The order treats the authorized subpoenas as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551. Each provider has 30 days after being served to give each affected subscriber a copy of the subpoena and this order. Each subscriber and provider has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber challenges the subpoena within that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.

Other requirements

Providers must preserve the subpoenaed information until they deliver it to Strike 3 or a timely motion to quash is finally resolved. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Documents containing a current or proposed defendant’s name or other identifying information must be filed under seal, following the court’s local sealing procedures. Publicly filed redacted documents should redact only the defendant’s name and other identifying information.

Disposition

The court granted Strike 3 permission to serve the described subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference, subject to the order’s notice, challenge, preservation, confidentiality, and use restrictions. Judge Kandis Westmore issued the order on January 22, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.