Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 24, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.15.47.109

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:22-cv-02902
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 authorized subpoenas seeking the subscriber’s identity before the usual discovery conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the unnamed defendant from Comcast and potentially other identified internet service providers. The subscriber and any provider receiving a subpoena may challenge it, and the subscriber must receive notice.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for permission to subpoena Comcast before the parties held the usual discovery-planning conference. The defendant was identified only as the subscriber assigned IP address 73.15.47.109.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response, subject to notice, an opportunity to challenge the subpoenas, information-preservation requirements, and sealing of identifying information.

The court granted the motion on May 24, 2022. Judge Thomas S. Hixson limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in Strike 3’s complaint; the order did not decide the underlying claims.

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 73.15.47.109 · No. 3:22-cv-02902
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
May 24, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application, meaning an application made without the opposing party’s participation at that stage, for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the usual meeting in which parties discuss the case and plan discovery. The defendant was identified as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 73.15.47.109.

Order

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to subpoena Comcast Cable, referred to as the internet service provider. The court granted permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena, which is a legal demand for information directed to a nonparty, requiring Comcast to provide the defendant’s true name and address associated with the IP address listed in the complaint. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena.

The order also permitted Strike 3 to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

If Comcast qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). That provision allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The order directed Comcast to send a copy of the order to the defendant.

Notice and Challenges

The internet service provider had to serve the subscriber with a copy of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena was served on the provider. The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service to file a motion contesting 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 had to preserve the subpoenaed information until it delivered the information to Strike 3 or until a timely motion to quash was finally resolved. Any name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant had to be filed under seal.

Disposition

The court granted Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s ex parte motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference. Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Thomas S. Hixson’s order authorized discovery and did not resolve the underlying claims.

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.