Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.50.7.2
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-09461
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero allowed subpoenas to identify a defendant while protecting notice and privacy rights.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; the John Doe subscriber associated with IP address 104.50.7.2; AT&T U-verse; any other identified internet service providers; and subscribers whose information is sought.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena internet providers before the parties held the conference normally required by the federal rules. The company sought the true name and address of the person connected to IP address 104.50.7.2.
The court found good cause and authorized a subpoena to AT&T U-verse. It also authorized subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process. The order set deadlines for notice and challenges to the subpoenas.
Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered providers to preserve the requested information and keep any identifying information sealed. The information could be used only to protect Strike 3 Holdings’ rights under the Copyright Act.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.50.7.2 · No. 3:20-cv-09461
- Joseph Spero
- Mar. 16, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied without advance notice to the opposing party for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A third-party subpoena is a formal demand for information from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit. Strike 3 sought information identifying the defendant associated with IP address 104.50.7.2.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on AT&T U-verse. The court authorized Strike 3 to use a Rule 45 subpoena—a subpoena issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45—to require AT&T to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The subpoena had to include a copy of the order.
The court also authorized 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 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 internet service provider had 30 days after being served to provide each affected subscriber with copies of the subpoena and the order. Each subscriber and provider then had 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge was filed, the provider had 10 days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber.
Providers were required to preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely challenge. Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act. Names and other identifying information concerning current or proposed defendants, or other subscribers identified through the subpoenas, had to be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed.
Disposition
Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Strike 3 Holdings’ ex parte application to serve the subpoenas, subject to the notice, challenge, preservation, limited-use, and sealing requirements in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.