Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.216.241.80
- Joseph Spero
- 3:21-cv-00251
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Magistrate Judge Spero allowed subpoenas to identify the internet subscriber linked to an IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified subscriber associated with IP address 107.216.241.80, AT&T U-verse, and any other internet service provider identified as serving that subscriber.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.216.241.80, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena internet providers before the parties’ required planning conference. The subpoena sought the subscriber’s name and address.
The court granted the application. It authorized subpoenas to AT&T U-verse and any other provider identified as serving the subscriber, while giving the subscriber and providers 30 days to challenge a subpoena.
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero also required notice, preservation of the information, limited use for protecting copyright rights, and sealing of identifying information. The order did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.216.241.80 · No. 3:21-cv-00251
- Joseph Spero
- Mar. 16, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application, meaning an application made without first involving the opposing party, for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with IP address 107.216.241.80.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve a subpoena on AT&T U-verse. The court granted the application and authorized Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring AT&T to provide the defendant’s name and address. The subpoena must include a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant. The order treated the authorized subpoenas as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551, subject to the statute’s notice requirement.
Notice and Challenges
Each provider had 30 days after service to notify each subscriber whose information was sought and provide a copy of the subpoena and order. Each subscriber and provider also had 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge was filed after service on a subscriber, the provider had 10 days to produce the responsive information.
Protection of Information
Providers were required to preserve the subpoenaed information until delivering it to Strike 3 or until a timely motion to quash was finally resolved. Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to a subpoena only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Names and other identifying information of current or proposed defendants and other subscribers had to be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed.
Judge
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero entered the order on March 16, 2021. The order addressed discovery needed to identify a defendant; it did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.