Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.223.46
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-06861
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi allowed a subpoena to Comcast seeking the subscriber’s identity for IP address 24.4.223.46.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena Comcast Cable for the name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.223.46. Comcast must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The order does not identify the subscriber or decide liability.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.223.46, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required initial conference. Strike 3 said Comcast could identify the person or entity connected to the internet address.
The court found good cause because Strike 3 had identified the defendant sufficiently, described steps taken to locate the defendant, shown that its lawsuit could survive a request for dismissal, and shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant. The court also noted that Strike 3 could not rely only on the fact that someone was the registered subscriber of an internet address associated with alleged infringement to establish a plausible direct-infringement claim.
The court granted Strike 3’s application. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena for the subscriber’s true name and address, required notice to the subscriber, limited use of the information, and allowed Comcast to object or seek a protective order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.223.46 · No. 5:21-cv-06861
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 29, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena sought the true name and address of the subscriber to whom Comcast assigned Internet Protocol address 24.4.223.46.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early third-party discovery. It found that Strike 3 had: (1) identified the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) identified steps already taken to locate the defendant; (3) shown that its action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) shown a reasonable likelihood that discovery could identify the defendant so that service of process would be possible.
The court cautioned that, after learning the defendant’s identity, Strike 3 could not state a plausible direct-infringement claim merely by alleging that the defendant was the registered subscriber of an Internet Protocol address associated with infringing activity. At this stage, however, the court found that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application and ordered the following:
- Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. - Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on Comcast. Comcast may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address. - Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. - Comcast may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order. If Comcast provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.
The order authorized early discovery but did not determine the subscriber’s identity or decide whether the subscriber infringed Strike 3’s rights.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.