Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 25, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.77.147

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:22-cv-02899
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero allowed subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to an IP address, subject to notice and challenges.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.77.147. Comcast and any other identified internet service providers must provide notice, preserve the information, and comply with the subpoena unless a subscriber or provider timely challenges it.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to serve a subpoena on Comcast before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The subpoena seeks the name and address of the person assigned the listed internet address, 76.103.77.147.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with the subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process. The providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge or seek to change the subpoenas within 30 days.

Judge Spero ordered the providers to preserve the requested information and, if no timely challenge is filed, produce it within the specified period. Any information provided may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act, and identifying information must 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 76.103.77.147 · No. 3:22-cv-02899
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
May 25, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena concerns Comcast Cable and seeks the true name and address of the defendant to whom Comcast assigned IP address 76.103.77.147.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to obtain the early discovery. It granted permission to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and required Strike 3 to attach a copy of the order.

The order also permits Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant. The order refers to Comcast and any such providers collectively as the “ISPs.”

Notice and challenges

The court determined that the authorized subpoenas qualify as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551. Each ISP must serve the subscriber whose identity is sought with a copy of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after the ISP is served. The ISP may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight delivery to the subscriber’s last known address.

Each subscriber and each ISP has 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 ISP has 10 days to provide Strike 3 with the responsive information for that subscriber.

Confidentiality and use of information

Each ISP must preserve the subpoenaed information until it gives the information to Strike 3 or a timely motion to quash is finally resolved. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Any name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed.

Disposition

The court granted Strike 3’s ex parte application for leave to serve the third-party subpoena, subject to the notice, challenge, preservation, limited-use, and sealing requirements described in the order. The order does not decide the underlying copyright dispute or determine the defendant’s identity.

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.