Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.183.3
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-08610
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Chen allowed early discovery so Strike 3 could subpoena Comcast for the accused subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings may subpoena Comcast for the name and addresses associated with the specified Internet Protocol address. Comcast must notify the Doe defendant and preserve responsive information, while the Doe defendant may challenge the subpoena within the time allowed. The order also limits Strike 3’s public disclosure and use of any identifying information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified subscriber linked to Internet Protocol address 24.6.183.3, alleging that the person infringed its copyrights in adult motion pictures. Strike 3 said it could not identify the person through its own efforts.
Strike 3 asked the court for permission to subpoena Comcast, the subscriber’s internet provider, before the usual early stage of discovery. The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause under the factors courts use for identifying an unknown defendant.
The court granted Strike 3’s expedited-discovery motion. Judge Chen authorized a subpoena for the subscriber’s name and addresses, while limiting how Strike 3 could use or disclose the information and giving the subscriber time to challenge the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.183.3 · No. 3:21-cv-08610
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 12, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the person using Internet Protocol address 24.6.183.3 infringed copyrights in several adult motion pictures. Strike 3 had not been able to identify that person. It asked for an order allowing it to serve a subpoena on Comcast, a nonparty internet service provider, to obtain the person’s identity.
The application was made before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The court explained that federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) permits early discovery when it is convenient for the parties and witnesses and serves the interests of justice. Courts generally require a showing of “good cause,” meaning that the need for early discovery outweighs potential prejudice to the responding party.
Court’s analysis
The court applied four factors for early discovery aimed at identifying an unknown defendant:
- Whether the plaintiff identified the unknown defendant specifically enough for the court to determine that the defendant is a real person who could be sued in federal court;
- What steps the plaintiff took to locate and identify the defendant;
- Whether the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss; and
- Whether the requested discovery was reasonably likely to produce information that would identify the defendant and allow service of process.
The court found that Strike 3 made a sufficient showing under all four factors and therefore established good cause for early discovery through a third-party subpoena to Comcast.
Because the internet subscriber might be an innocent third party and the lawsuit involved sensitive personal matters, the court also issued a limited protective order. Information Comcast disclosed to Strike 3 was to be treated as confidential. Strike 3 could not publicly disclose that information until the Doe defendant had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court had ruled on that request. If the Doe defendant did not file such a request within 30 days after the information was disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel, the limited protective order would expire. The court also allowed identifying information in an anonymity request to be filed under seal.
Order and practical effect
The court granted Strike 3’s ex parte motion for expedited discovery. It authorized Strike 3 to immediately serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena, accompanied by a copy of the order, seeking the Doe defendant’s true name and addresses.
The order required Comcast to notify the Doe defendant within 30 days after service. The Doe defendant then had 30 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. The subpoenaed entity had to preserve the requested information while any timely motion to quash was pending. The order also restricted use of disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint and addressed possible production costs. The order disposed of Docket No. 7. It did not determine whether the Doe defendant infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.