Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.62.124.166
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-03474
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero ordered Doe to explain why an early Comcast subpoena should not issue, with limits on disclosure.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Doe’s defense counsel, and Comcast Cable as the potential subpoena recipient.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, who was identified only by the internet address 174.62.124.166. Strike 3 asked to serve an early subpoena on Comcast, which it believed provided Doe’s internet service.
Defense counsel had appeared for Doe, even though Strike 3 apparently did not know Doe’s identity. The court ordered Doe to respond by July 29, 2020, explaining why Strike 3’s request should not be granted.
Judge Spero also ordered the parties to discuss whether defense counsel could accept service for Doe or otherwise eliminate the need for the subpoena. The order did not decide whether the subpoena would issue.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.62.124.166 · No. 3:20-cv-03474
- Joseph Spero
- July 15, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied to serve an early subpoena on Comcast Cable. Strike 3 believed Comcast was the internet service provider for John Doe, who was identified in the case only by IP address 174.62.124.166. The opinion states that Strike 3 apparently remained unaware of Doe’s identity, but defense counsel had appeared on Doe’s behalf.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Doe to explain why the requested subpoena should not be granted. The court stated that any grant would include restrictions on publicly disclosing Doe’s identity. Doe’s response was due by July 29, 2020.
The parties were also ordered to meet and confer about whether defense counsel could accept service for Doe or otherwise eliminate the need for the requested third-party discovery. If they resolved the issue so that the subpoena request became unnecessary, they could file a joint statement instead of Doe’s response. If they did not resolve it, Doe’s response had to report that result.
Disposition
Judge Spero ordered Doe to respond to the order to show cause and ordered the parties to meet and confer. The opinion did not grant or deny Strike 3’s subpoena application.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.