Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.175.160
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-02240
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Orrick granted leave for a narrow subpoena seeking the anonymous defendant’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the anonymous defendant identified by IP address 24.4.175.160, and Comcast Cable, which must preserve and potentially disclose the identifying information under the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an anonymous defendant identified by an internet address and asked to subpoena the defendant’s internet service provider, Comcast Cable, for the person’s name and address. The request concerned alleged copyright infringement.
The court found good cause based on Strike 3’s sworn submissions and allowed the subpoena, with limits to protect the defendant’s privacy. Comcast must notify the defendant, who has 30 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. If there is no challenge, Comcast must provide the information to Strike 3. Strike 3 may use the information only to pursue this case and may not disclose it without court permission.
Judge William H. Orrick issued the order on May 10, 2022. The order granted leave for the subpoena and entered a protective order; it did not decide whether the defendant ultimately infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.175.160 · No. 3:22-cv-02240
- William Orrick
- May 10, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied ex parte—that is, without first giving the anonymous defendant an opportunity to respond—for permission to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The proposed subpoena sought only the name and address associated with the known internet protocol address, or IP address, from the defendant’s internet service provider.
Based on Strike 3’s sworn submissions, the court found a sufficient preliminary showing that Strike 3 held the copyrights at issue, that at least one work was being infringed by the Doe defendant, and that the court had personal jurisdiction based on geolocation of the IP address. The court also found that the subpoena was reasonably likely to identify the defendant and facilitate service, that the information might be deleted without preservation, that Strike 3 had exhausted other reasonable avenues for identifying the defendant, and that the request was narrowly tailored.
Ruling
The court granted leave for Strike 3 to immediately serve Comcast Cable with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only the defendant’s true name and address associated with the identified IP address. The order must be attached to the subpoena.
Comcast must serve the defendant with the subpoena and the order within 15 days after being served. The defendant then has 30 days after service by Comcast to challenge the subpoena through a motion to quash or modify. The defendant may also ask to proceed under a pseudonym. If the defendant does not challenge the subpoena within that period, Comcast must provide the responsive information to Strike 3 within 10 days after the challenge period ends. Comcast must preserve the information until it produces it or until the court rules on a challenge.
Protective Order
The protective order limits Strike 3’s use of the subpoenaed information to prosecuting this action and protecting the rights identified in its complaint. Strike 3 may not disclose the defendant’s name or address to a third party without court permission. Any public filing that includes the information or identifies the defendant must redact identifying information, and the information must not be filed until the court decides whether the defendant’s identity may remain confidential. After identification, the defendant may seek another protective order, and the protective order remains in effect until the court dissolves it.
Judge William H. Orrick therefore granted leave for the limited early subpoena and issued the protective order. The opinion concerns discovery and privacy protections; it does not resolve the ultimate copyright-infringement claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.