Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.119.192.121
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-00288
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe Subscriber, Judge Demarchi allowed a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s identity from AT&T U-verse in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe subscriber through AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order; the subscriber’s identity is subject to disclosure limits.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 99.119.192.121 and asked to subpoena AT&T U-verse before the parties’ required planning conference. Strike 3 said the subpoena could identify the person or entity connected to the internet address.
The court found good cause for early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had identified the defendant specifically enough, described efforts to locate the defendant, presented an action that could withstand dismissal, and showed a reasonable chance of identifying the defendant through discovery.
Judge Demarchi granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 may subpoena AT&T U-verse for the subscriber’s true name and address, subject to notice, objections, possible court protection, and limits on using or publicly disclosing the information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.119.192.121 · No. 5:21-cv-00288
- Virginia Demarchi
- Feb. 4, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on AT&T U-verse before the parties held the conference ordinarily required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). AT&T U-verse was identified as the internet service provider for the subscriber assigned IP address 99.119.192.121. Strike 3 sought the subscriber’s true name and address.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early third-party discovery. The court said Strike 3 had: (1) identified the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity that could be sued in federal court; (2) identified earlier efforts to locate the defendant; (3) presented an action that could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so service of process could occur. The court also noted Strike 3’s representation that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirement under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).
The court stated that an internet address associated with alleged infringing activity does not, by itself, establish a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. But, based on the record at this stage, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
Ruling and conditions
The court granted Strike 3’s application and ordered that:
- Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T U-verse seeking the true name and address of the subscriber assigned the specified IP address, and must attach the order to the subpoena. - AT&T U-verse must serve the subscriber with the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on AT&T U-verse. - 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 seek a protective order, which is a court order limiting or controlling discovery. - If AT&T U-verse provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.
The opinion grants permission for limited identity-related discovery; it does not state that the court decided whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.