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

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.178.178

Judge
Donna Ryu
Docket
4:21-cv-07985
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Ryu authorized subpoenas to identify the subscriber assigned the listed Internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 23.114.178.178, AT&T U-verse, and any later-identified Internet service provider receiving an authorized subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena AT&T U-verse before the parties held a required scheduling conference. The company sought the name and address of the John Doe subscriber assigned the Internet address 23.114.178.178.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the subpoena. The company may also subpoena later-identified Internet providers for subscriber information, but may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

The order requires notice to the subscriber, gives the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and requires the provider to preserve the information. Judge Donna M. Ryu also ordered identifying information filed under seal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.178.178 · No. 4:21-cv-07985
Judge
Donna Ryu
Date
Dec. 17, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena would be directed to AT&T U-verse, identified as the Internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the defendant associated with Internet Protocol address 23.114.178.178.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve AT&T U-verse with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s name and address. The subpoena must include a copy of the order.

The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing Internet services to one of the defendants. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained through a subpoena served on the provider only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

Notice and challenges

If AT&T U-verse qualifies as a cable operator under the cited federal statute, it must comply with the statute’s notice requirement by sending the subscriber a copy of the order. More generally, the provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served. The provider may use reasonable means, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.

The subscriber and the provider each have 30 days after service to file a motion contesting 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 provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until it delivers the information or a timely motion to quash is finally resolved.

Confidentiality

The order requires any name or other personally identifying information of a current or proposed defendant to be filed under seal. If substantive motions are filed, the court may require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.

Disposition

The court granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve the specified third-party subpoenas, subject to the notice, challenge, preservation, use, and sealing requirements described in the order. Donna M. Ryu, United States Magistrate Judge, entered the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.