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

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.4.239

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:22-cv-02859
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Ryu allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast for the unidentified subscriber’s name and address, subject to safeguards.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the unidentified defendant’s name and address from Comcast or another identified internet provider; the subscriber receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena, and the provider must preserve the information.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.4.239 and asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required early case conference. Strike 3 said it needed the subscriber’s identifying information.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also subpoena later-identified internet providers, but could use the information only to protect and enforce its rights in this case.

The order required notice to the subscriber, gave the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, required the provider to preserve the information, and required identifying information to be filed under seal. Judge Ryu issued the order.

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 67.169.4.239 · No. 3:22-cv-02859
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
June 24, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application—an application made without first giving the other side notice—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 would be directed to Comcast Cable, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the defendant associated with the IP address listed in the complaint.

Court’s analysis and order

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Rule 45, provided that Strike 3 attached a copy of the order. The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any 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 Comcast to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). That provision permits disclosure of personally identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified by the person receiving the order. The order therefore required the provider to send the subscriber a copy of both the subpoena and the order within 30 days after service. Notice could be sent by first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address, or by another reasonable method.

The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service on the subscriber to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If that period expired without a challenge, the provider would have 10 days to produce the responsive information. The provider was required to preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or the final resolution of a timely motion to quash.

Additional restrictions and disposition

Strike 3 could use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. Any name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant had to be filed under seal. The court also stated that, if substantive motions were later filed, it might require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.

The court issued the order authorizing the requested third-party subpoena subject to these conditions. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order.

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.