Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 6, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.240.159

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:21-cv-06818
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam granted permission to subpoena Comcast for the subscriber’s identity before the required conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, Comcast Cable, any other identified internet provider, and the subscriber associated with IP address 67.180.240.159.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a person identified only by the internet address 67.180.240.159 and asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required conference. The company said the subpoena was needed to learn the person’s name and address.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena seeking that information. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through Comcast’s response. Providers must notify the affected subscriber, who may challenge the subpoena within 30 days.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also ordered that any identifying information released remain confidential while the subscriber has an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously. The order addressed discovery and did not decide whether the subscriber infringed Strike 3’s copyright.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.240.159 · No. 4:21-cv-06818
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Oct. 6, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena would be directed to Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the John Doe defendant associated with IP address 67.180.240.159.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. It granted the application and authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena for the subscriber’s name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena. The court also authorized a subpoena to any other internet provider identified in response to the Comcast subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant.

If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under federal law, it must notify the subscriber of the court order when disclosing personal identifying information. Each internet provider has 30 days after service to notify each subscriber whose information is sought by providing the subpoena and the order. Each subscriber and provider then has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no challenge is filed during that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the requested information.

Protective Order and Effect

The court issued a limited protective order because the subscriber might not be the person who allegedly infringed Strike 3’s copyright and because of the potential embarrassment from being publicly accused of illegally downloading adult motion pictures. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 must remain confidential and may not be publicly disclosed until the defendant has had an opportunity to seek permission to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the defendant does not seek permission to proceed anonymously within 30 days after the information is disclosed, the limited protective order will expire.

The court granted the application for early subpoena service. This order concerned discovery and did not decide whether the John Doe defendant committed copyright infringement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.