Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.77.233.252
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:20-cv-08355
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Westmore authorized subpoenas seeking the defendant’s name and address from internet providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the subscriber assigned IP address 108.77.233.252, and internet service providers receiving the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the Northern District of California for permission to subpoena internet providers before the parties held their required initial meeting about the case. The defendant was identified in the caption only as the subscriber assigned IP address 108.77.233.252.
The court found good cause to allow the request. Strike 3 could subpoena AT&T U-verse, and any other internet provider identified in response, for the defendant’s true name and address. The providers had to notify the affected subscribers, who could challenge the subpoenas within 30 days.
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 108.77.233.252, Judge Kandis Westmore also required the providers to preserve the information, limited its use to protecting Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act, and required filings containing identifying information to be sealed.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.77.233.252 · No. 4:20-cv-08355
- Kandis Westmore
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena sought information identifying the defendant, who was listed as “John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 108.77.233.252.”
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve a subpoena on AT&T U-verse, identified as the initial internet service provider. The subpoena could seek only the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also serve the same type of subpoena on any additional internet service provider identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant.
The court ordered each provider to notify the affected subscriber within 30 days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. If no challenge was filed within that period, the provider would have 10 days to produce the responsive identifying information. Providers also had to preserve the subpoenaed information until producing it or until a timely challenge was finally resolved.
The court authorized disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551 and limited any information disclosed to Strike 3’s use in protecting its rights under the Copyright Act. Documents containing the name or other personal identifying information of any current or proposed defendant had to be filed under seal. The order did not decide the underlying copyright claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.