Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.209.231.168
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.209.231.168
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-09466
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi allowed early discovery to identify the subscriber linked to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address 108.209.231.168. AT&T U-verse must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The subscriber’s identifying information is subject to limits on use and public disclosure.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified subscriber associated with internet protocol address 108.209.231.168 and asked to subpoena AT&T U-verse before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. Strike 3 said it needed the subscriber’s name and address to identify the defendant in its copyright case.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It allowed Strike 3 to serve AT&T U-verse with a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address, subject to several protections. AT&T U-verse must notify the subscriber within 30 days, may object or seek a protective order, and Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the information without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve the subpoena. The order did not identify the subscriber or decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.209.231.168 · No. 5:20-cv-09466
- Virginia Demarchi
- Jan. 26, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on AT&T U-verse before the parties held the conference normally used to plan discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T U-verse assigned IP address 108.209.231.168.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause for allowing this early discovery. It stated that Strike 3 had shown that:
- it could identify the defendant specifically enough for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; - it had identified steps already taken to locate the defendant; - its lawsuit could withstand a motion to dismiss; and - there was a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so that service of the lawsuit would be possible.
The court also noted that Strike 3’s application indicated that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirement under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). At this stage, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use discovery to determine the identity of the person associated with the address and to pursue a plausible direct or contributory copyright-infringement claim.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application and ordered the following:
- Strike 3 may serve AT&T U-verse with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the court’s order to the subpoena.
- AT&T U-verse must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
- Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
- AT&T U-verse may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order.
If AT&T U-verse provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court. The order granted permission for limited identification discovery; it did not identify the subscriber or decide the merits of the copyright claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.