Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.167.201.202
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-09800
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam allowed early subpoenas to identify an IP-address subscriber, with notice and confidentiality protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe subscriber associated with IP address 99.167.201.202, AT&T U-verse, and any other internet service provider identified in response to the subpoena.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 99.167.201.202, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on AT&T U-verse before the parties’ required early meeting. Strike 3 said the subpoena would identify the person associated with the IP address listed in the complaint.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve the subpoena, and potentially similar subpoenas on other internet providers identified in the response. The providers must notify the affected subscriber, who may challenge the subpoena within 30 days. The order did not decide whether the subscriber infringed Strike 3’s copyright.
Judge Gilliam also required any identifying information released to Strike 3 to remain confidential until the subscriber could ask to proceed anonymously and the court ruled on that request. The court granted Strike 3’s application for leave to serve the subpoena before the required conference.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.167.201.202 · No. 4:21-cv-09800
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 5, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before 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 IP address 99.167.201.202.
Court’s analysis and order
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve the subpoena on AT&T U-verse and to attach a copy of the order. It also authorized subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through the subpoena response.
If the provider qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required compliance with the notice procedure in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Each provider had 30 days after service to give the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order. The subscriber and provider each had 30 days after service to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or modify it. If no challenge was filed, the provider would have 10 additional days to produce the requested information.
The court also issued a limited protective order. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 had to be treated as confidential and could not be publicly disclosed until the defendant had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court ruled on that request. If the defendant did not file that request within 30 days after the information was disclosed, the limited protective order would expire.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that Strike 3’s ex parte application for leave to serve a subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference was granted. The order addressed discovery and protection of identifying information; it did not resolve 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.