Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.30.93.48
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-02487
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi granted permission to subpoena AT&T U-verse for the anonymous subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity of John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.30.93.48 through a subpoena to AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The order does not decide the copyright-infringement claim.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, and asked to serve AT&T U-verse with a subpoena before the parties’ required early case meeting. Strike 3 sought the subscriber’s name and address so it could identify the defendant.
The court found good cause for early discovery because Strike 3 had identified the defendant sufficiently, described efforts to locate the defendant, shown that its claims could survive dismissal, and shown a reasonable chance of identifying the defendant through discovery. The court also noted that Strike 3 had met the copyright-registration requirement for starting its lawsuit.
Judge Demarchi granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve a subpoena requiring AT&T U-verse to provide the subscriber’s true name and address, subject to notice and objection rights. The information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in the complaint, and it may not be publicly disclosed without the subscriber’s consent or court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.30.93.48 · No. 5:21-cv-02487
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 26, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on AT&T U-verse before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T U-verse assigned internet protocol address 45.30.93.48. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.30.93.48.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery. Specifically, the court said Strike 3 had shown that:
- it could identify a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court with sufficient specificity; - it had identified steps already taken to locate the defendant; - its action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and - there was a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so service of process could occur.
The court also noted that Strike 3’s application showed compliance with the copyright-registration requirement in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The court cautioned that, after learning the defendant’s identity, Strike 3 could not rely only on an allegation that the defendant was the subscriber registered to an internet protocol address associated with infringement to state a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement. At this stage, however, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to identify the defendant.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena—a formal demand for information issued to a nonparty—on AT&T U-verse seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.
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. AT&T U-verse may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight delivery to the subscriber’s last known address. AT&T U-verse may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order, which is a court order limiting or preventing disclosure.
Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. 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. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order on April 26, 2021. The order addressed discovery and identification of the defendant; it did not decide whether the defendant committed copyright infringement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.