Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.9.34
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-03475
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero ordered a response before deciding whether to allow an early subpoena seeking Doe’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Doe’s defense counsel, and Comcast Cable are affected. The order concerns Strike 3’s request to obtain Doe’s identity through a subpoena to Comcast.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve an early subpoena on Comcast Cable to identify John Doe, who was identified only by the internet address 24.5.9.34.
The court did not yet grant or deny the subpoena request. Instead, it ordered Doe to explain by July 29, 2020 why the request should not be granted, subject to limits on publicly disclosing Doe’s identity.
Judge Joseph C. Spero also ordered the parties to discuss whether Doe’s lawyer could accept service or otherwise resolve the need for the subpoena. The order was entered on July 15, 2020.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.9.34 · No. 3:20-cv-03475
- Joseph Spero
- July 15, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied without advance notice to the opposing party for permission to serve an early subpoena on Comcast Cable. Strike 3 believed Comcast was the internet service provider for John Doe, who was identified only by IP address 24.5.9.34. Strike 3 apparently did not yet know Doe’s identity, but defense counsel had appeared for Doe.
Court’s order
The court ordered Doe to show cause—that is, to explain—why Strike 3’s subpoena application should not be granted. The court stated that any grant would include restrictions on public disclosure of Doe’s identity. It directed Doe to file a response by July 29, 2020, and referred to the reasons given in the court’s decision in a prior related proceeding involving a similar subpoena.
The court also ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether defense counsel could accept service for Doe or otherwise resolve the need for the requested third-party discovery. If that discussion made the subpoena request unnecessary, the parties could file a joint statement instead of Doe’s response, with the response reporting the outcome.
Disposition
This order did not finally grant or deny Strike 3’s subpoena application. It required Doe to respond and required the parties to confer. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered the order on July 15, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.