Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 1, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.237.79.93

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:21-cv-00263
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber, Judge Westmore allowed subpoenas to identify the subscriber assigned the listed internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; the unidentified subscriber assigned IP address 162.237.79.93; AT&T U-verse; any later-identified internet-service providers; and subscribers whose identifying information is sought.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked in Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 162.237.79.93 for permission to subpoena an internet provider before the parties’ required initial conference. The defendant was identified only by the internet address 162.237.79.93.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T U-verse for the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also subpoena later-identified internet providers. The providers had to notify affected subscribers, and subscribers and providers had 30 days to challenge a subpoena. The order also required providers to preserve the information, limited its use to protecting Strike 3’s copyright rights, and required filings containing identifying information to be sealed.

Judge Kandis Westmore issued the order on February 1, 2021. The order concerned pretrial discovery and did not decide the underlying copyright dispute.

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 162.237.79.93 · No. 4:21-cv-00263
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
Feb. 1, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte motion, meaning a motion made without a prior hearing involving the opposing party, for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought information about the person assigned internet protocol address 162.237.79.93. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 162.237.79.93.

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 court allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring AT&T U-verse to provide only the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach the order to the subpoena.

The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant. The court determined that the authorized subpoenas qualified as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551, provided that the subscriber was notified.

Notice and challenges

Each provider had 30 days after receiving a subpoena to serve the affected subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order. Each subscriber and provider also had 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber challenged the subpoena within that period, the provider had 10 days to produce the responsive information to Strike 3.

Providers had to preserve the subpoenaed information until they delivered it to Strike 3 or until a timely challenge was finally resolved. Strike 3 could use information produced in response to a subpoena only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Documents containing the name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant had to be filed under seal, following the court’s local filing procedure.

Disposition and scope

The court granted Strike 3 permission to serve the specified subpoenas subject to the stated conditions. The order addressed discovery and disclosure procedures; it did not decide the merits of the underlying copyright dispute. Judge Kandis Westmore issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.