Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 136.24.39.9
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-08791
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam allowed early subpoena discovery to identify the subscriber, with notice and confidentiality protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the subscriber’s identifying information from Webpass and potentially other internet service providers. The unidentified subscriber and each provider may receive notice and challenge the subpoena, and the subscriber’s identifying information is subject to limited confidentiality protections.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve Webpass, the internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties’ required discovery meeting so it could learn the name and address of the person assigned the listed internet address.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response, subject to notice, time limits, and possible challenges by the subscriber or provider.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the application and issued a limited confidentiality order. The order did not decide whether the subscriber infringed Strike 3’s copyright; it required confidential treatment of identifying information until the subscriber could ask to proceed anonymously.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 136.24.39.9 · No. 4:21-cv-08791
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 29, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought permission to serve a subpoena before the parties held the discovery conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena would be directed to Webpass, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the John Doe defendant associated with IP address 136.24.39.9.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the early subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Webpass with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s identifying information and required Strike 3 to attach the order to the subpoena. The court also allowed Strike 3 to subpoena any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant.
If an internet service provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Each provider must give the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after being served. The subscriber and provider then have 30 days after service on the relevant person or entity to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to quash or modify it. If no challenge is filed during that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.
Confidentiality Protections
The court recognized that the subscriber might not be the person who infringed Strike 3’s copyright and that public accusations involving adult motion pictures could cause embarrassment. It therefore issued a limited protective order. 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 ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the defendant does not file that request within 30 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3, the limited protective order expires.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the application for leave to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference and terminated Docket No. 7. The order authorized discovery procedures but did not decide whether the defendant infringed Strike 3’s copyright.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.