Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 16, 2020

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.15.67.119

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:20-cv-07422
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryIntellectual PropertyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero authorized subpoenas to identify the defendant, with notice and time to challenge.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant associated with IP address 104.15.67.119, AT&T U-Verse, any other identified internet service provider, and subscribers whose identifying information is sought.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the Northern District of California for permission to issue a subpoena before the parties’ required case-planning conference. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person assigned the listed internet address.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T U-Verse and any other internet provider identified in response. The providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge or seek to change the subpoenas within 30 days.

The order also required providers to preserve the information and limited its use to protecting Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order on November 16, 2020.

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 104.15.67.119 · No. 3:20-cv-07422
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
Nov. 16, 2020

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested subpoena was directed to AT&T U-Verse and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with IP address 104.15.67.119.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to issue the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve AT&T with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s identifying information. It also authorized subpoenas to any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant.

The order stated that the authorized subpoenas qualify as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551. Each provider must serve the affected subscriber with the subpoena and this order within 30 days after service on the provider. The subscriber or provider then has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or modify it. If that period expires without a challenge, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.

The providers must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely motion to cancel the subpoena. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act. The order further requires that the name or other personal identifying information of any current or proposed defendant, or any other subscriber identified through a subpoena, be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order.

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.