Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.92.34.51

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:21-cv-07832
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero authorized subpoenas to identify an internet subscriber while preserving opportunities to challenge disclosure.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings may seek the identity and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 73.92.34.51 from Comcast and potentially other identified internet service providers. The subscriber and those providers may challenge the subpoenas within the ordered deadlines, and any disclosed identifying information must be filed under seal.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.92.34.51, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case-management conference. The court found good cause for the request.

The court authorized a subpoena to Comcast Cable seeking the defendant’s true name and address. It also authorized subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response. Providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge or seek to modify the subpoenas within the specified 30-day period.

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the application. The order required providers to preserve the requested information, limited its use to protecting Strike 3 Holdings’ rights under the Copyright Act, and required personal identifying information to be filed under seal. The order did not decide whether the defendant infringed copyright.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.92.34.51 · No. 3:21-cv-07832
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
Nov. 17, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested discovery concerned the internet service provider associated with IP address 73.92.34.51.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable. The court authorized a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Comcast to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant. The order treated the authorized subpoenas as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551, subject to the statute’s notice requirement.

Notice and Challenges

Each internet service provider had 30 days after service to give each affected subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order. Each subscriber and provider then had 30 days after service to file a motion contesting, quashing, or modifying the subpoena. If no timely challenge was filed, the provider had 10 days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber.

Providers were required to preserve the subpoenaed information until delivering it to Strike 3 Holdings or until a timely motion to quash was finally resolved. Information disclosed in response could be used only to protect Strike 3 Holdings’ rights under the Copyright Act. Any name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant, or another subscriber identified through the subpoena, had to be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Strike 3 Holdings’ ex parte application to serve the subpoena. The order authorized limited identity-related discovery and did not decide the merits of any copyright claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.