Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 31, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.249.171.8

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:22-cv-01297
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Hixson granted leave to subpoena an internet provider for the defendant’s name and address before discovery began.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s name and address through subpoenas. John Doe, the subscriber associated with IP address 70.249.171.8, and the internet service provider received notice, challenge, preservation, and confidentiality protections under the order.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.249.171.8 and asked to learn the defendant’s identity from the internet provider that assigned the address.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve AT&T Internet Services with a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. The order also allowed subpoenas to other identified internet providers, subject to notice, an opportunity to challenge the subpoenas, limits on using the information, and filing identifying information under seal.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted the request and set deadlines for the provider and subscriber to respond, challenge, preserve, and produce the subpoenaed information.

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 70.249.171.8 · No. 3:22-cv-01297
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
Mar. 31, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested subpoena sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the IP address listed in the complaint. The proposed recipient was AT&T Internet Services, identified in the order as the internet service provider.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena and granted the application. The court authorized a Rule 45 subpoena requiring the internet service provider to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

Conditions and deadlines

If the internet service provider qualified as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it had to comply with the statute’s notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

The internet service provider had to serve the subscriber with a copy of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after service on the provider. The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If that period expired without a challenge, the provider had 10 days to produce the responsive information. The provider also had to preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or final resolution of a timely challenge. Any name or other identifying information of a current or proposed defendant had to be filed under seal.

The order addressed discovery procedures and did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.

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.