Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.195.244.102
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.195.244.102
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-08725
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Ryu authorized a subpoena to identify the internet subscriber before deciding the case’s merits.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified subscriber assigned the listed internet address, AT&T U-verse, and any later-identified internet service provider responding to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena AT&T U-verse before the parties held their required early case-management meeting. The subpoena sought the true name and address of the person assigned the listed internet address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the subpoena. The company could also subpoena later-identified internet providers, but could use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The order required notice to the subscriber and gave the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, including by asking to cancel or change it. The provider had to preserve the information, and identifying information had to be filed under seal. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.195.244.102 · No. 4:21-cv-08725
- Donna Ryu
- Dec. 17, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application, meaning an application made without first notifying or obtaining participation from the opposing party, for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena was directed to AT&T U-verse, which the order calls the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint.
Order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The company was authorized to serve AT&T U-verse with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, attaching a copy of the order. The order also authorized subpoenas to any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If AT&T U-verse qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber of the court-authorized disclosure by sending the subscriber a copy of the order. The provider had to serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after service on the provider, using any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge was filed, the provider would have 10 days to produce the responsive information. The provider also had to preserve the subpoenaed information until producing it or until a timely motion to quash was finally resolved. Strike 3 Holdings could use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Names and other identifying information of current or proposed defendants had to be filed under seal. The court stated that it might later require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously if substantive motions were filed.
Disposition
The order authorized the requested pre-conference third-party subpoena subject to these conditions. It did not decide the underlying claims or identify the defendant. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered the order on December 17, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.