Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 4, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.68.110.208

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:21-cv-00260
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi granted permission to subpoena AT&T U-verse for the subscriber’s identity.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity of the John Doe subscriber through AT&T U-verse. The subscriber receives notice and may object or seek a protective order. AT&T U-verse must respond as required by the order and may object or seek protection.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 108.68.110.208, Strike 3 asked to serve AT&T U-verse with a subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference. Strike 3 said the subpoena could help identify the person connected to the listed internet address.

The court found good cause and granted Strike 3’s request. Strike 3 may subpoena AT&T U-verse for the subscriber’s true name and address, but it must attach the order. AT&T U-verse must notify the subscriber, who may object or seek court protection. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce its rights in the complaint and may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi issued the order on February 4, 2021. The order allowed limited discovery to identify the subscriber; it did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.68.110.208 · No. 5:21-cv-00260
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Feb. 4, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T U-verse before the parties held the conference generally required by Rule 26(f). The subpoena would seek the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T U-verse assigned IP address 108.68.110.208.

Court’s reasoning

The court found good cause for early, limited discovery. It stated that Strike 3 had shown that it could identify a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court, had described steps taken to locate the defendant, had a potential action that could withstand a motion to dismiss, and had a reasonable likelihood of identifying the defendant through discovery so that service could be made. The court also noted Strike 3’s indication that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements for filing an infringement lawsuit.

The court explained that an internet address connected to alleged infringing activity, by itself, does not necessarily identify the person responsible. But, on the record before it, Strike 3 could use discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.

Order

The court granted Strike 3’s application and ordered the following:

  1. Strike 3 may serve AT&T U-verse with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
  2. AT&T U-verse must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on AT&T U-verse. The provider may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
  3. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint.
  4. AT&T U-verse may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order, which is a court order limiting or preventing disclosure.

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 authorized discovery to identify the defendant and did not decide the merits of Strike 3’s copyright claims.

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.