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 73.189.232.40

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:21-cv-06840
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero allowed subpoenas seeking the subscriber’s identity before the usual discovery conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identity from Comcast and other identified internet service providers. The John Doe subscriber and any other subscribers whose information is sought may receive notice and challenge the subpoenas. Comcast and those other providers must preserve the information and follow the order’s notice and production procedures.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.232.40, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference. The subpoena sought the defendant’s true name and address from Comcast Cable.

The court found good cause and granted permission to serve Comcast with the subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through the responses. The providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge or ask the court to change the subpoena within 30 days. Information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act, and identifying information must be filed under seal.

Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order on November 17, 2021. The order addressed early discovery and subpoena procedures; it did not decide the merits of any copyright claim.

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 73.189.232.40 · No. 3:21-cv-06840
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
Nov. 17, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied without advance notice to the opposing party for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with IP address 73.189.232.40.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It granted permission to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that Strike 3 attach a copy of the order. The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any internet service provider identified in a response as providing internet services to the defendant.

The court ordered that the authorized subpoenas would qualify as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551. Each provider must serve affected subscribers with the subpoena and the order within 30 days after receiving the subpoena, using a reasonable method such as first-class mail or overnight service. Each subscriber and provider has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If that period expires without a challenge, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.

The providers must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely motion to quash. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act. The names and other identifying information of current or proposed defendants and other subscribers identified through the subpoenas must be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed.

Effect of the Order

The court granted Strike 3’s ex parte application to serve the early subpoenas. The opinion does not decide whether the defendant infringed a copyright or otherwise resolve the underlying dispute. Judge Joseph C. Spero signed the order.

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.