Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.119.50
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-04775
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam allowed a subpoena to identify the internet subscriber linked to the listed IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Comcast Cable, and any other internet-service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.119.50. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Comcast Cable before the parties’ required early case conference.
The court found good cause for obtaining the subscriber’s name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process.
Judge Gilliam granted the application and imposed notice, objection, confidentiality, and limited-use requirements. The order did not decide whether John Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyright.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.119.50 · No. 4:21-cv-04775
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 18, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the true name and address of John Doe, whom the complaint identified as the person associated with IP address 76.103.119.50.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The court granted the application and authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast Cable for the subscriber’s identifying information. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet-service provider identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant.
If Comcast qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it had to follow the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the court’s order. Each internet-service provider had 30 days after receiving the subpoena to notify the subscriber whose information was sought. The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or change it. If no challenge was filed, the provider would have 10 days to produce the requested information.
Confidentiality and Use of Information
The court issued a limited protective order because the subscriber might not be the person who infringed Strike 3’s copyright and because the accusation involved alleged downloading of adult movies. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 had to remain confidential and could not be publicly disclosed until the defendant had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court ruled on that request. If the defendant did not make that request within 30 days after the information was disclosed, the limited protective order would expire. The order addressed discovery procedures and did not determine whether copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.