Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 5, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.137.28

Judge
Donna Ryu
Docket
4:22-cv-01323
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe Subscriber, Judge Ryu allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast for the defendant’s identity before the required conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.137.28, Comcast Cable, and any other internet provider or subscriber covered by the subpoena procedures.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve Comcast with a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference, seeking the name and address of the person assigned the listed internet address. The case names that person as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 24.4.137.28.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve the subpoena. The order also permits subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response, requires notice to the subscriber, gives the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge a subpoena, and limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights stated in the complaint.

In an amended order dated May 5, 2022, Judge Donna M. Ryu corrected an error in an earlier order and imposed these conditions. The court also required personal identifying information to be filed under seal.

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 24.4.137.28 · No. 4:22-cv-01323
Judge
Donna Ryu
Date
May 5, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena would be directed to Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the defendant to whom the internet provider assigned the IP address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint.

This amended order corrected an error in the court’s April 19, 2022 order, which had granted Strike 3 leave to serve the subpoena.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause to serve the subpoena. It allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that a copy of the order is attached. It also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personally identifiable information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The order requires the internet provider to serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after service on the provider. The subscriber and provider each have 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information to Strike 3.

The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or the final resolution of a timely motion to quash. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint. Any name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal. If substantive motions are filed, the court may require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.

Effect of the Order

The order authorizes early third-party discovery to identify the John Doe defendant; it does not decide the underlying claims. The affected parties include Strike 3, the internet provider, the subscriber, and any other service provider or subscriber covered by the order’s procedures.

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.