Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.162.13.187
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:22-cv-03341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi allowed Strike 3 to serve Comcast Cable a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the unknown subscriber’s name and address from Comcast Cable. The subscriber may receive notice and may be affected by the disclosure of identifying information; Comcast may object or seek a protective order. The order restricts Strike 3’s public disclosure and use of the information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a subscriber identified only by the internet protocol address 73.162.13.187 and asked to serve Comcast Cable with a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court found good cause because Strike 3 had identified the defendant with enough specificity, described efforts to locate the defendant, showed that its case could survive a request for dismissal, and showed a reasonable chance that discovery would identify the defendant. The court also noted that merely alleging that someone subscribed to the internet address would not be enough to state a valid claim after the person’s identity became known.
The court granted Strike 3’s application and authorized a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Comcast could object or seek a protective order, and Strike 3 could not publicly disclose information produced in response without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission. Judge Demarchi also limited use of the information to enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.162.13.187 · No. 5:22-cv-03341
- Virginia Demarchi
- July 7, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve Comcast Cable with a Rule 45 subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Rule 26(f). The subpoena sought the true name and address of the subscriber to whom Comcast assigned internet protocol address 73.162.13.187.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause for early third-party discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had shown that:
- It could identify the defendant with enough specificity for the court to determine that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court.
- It had identified steps already taken to locate the defendant.
- Its action could withstand a motion to dismiss.
- There was a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so that service of process would be possible.
The court noted that, once Strike 3 learned the defendant’s identity, it could not rely only on an allegation that the person was the registered subscriber of an internet protocol address associated with infringing activity to state a plausible claim. At this stage, however, the court found that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
Ruling and Restrictions
The court granted Strike 3’s application. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena and required Strike 3 to attach the order to the subpoena. The order directed Comcast to provide the subscriber’s true name and address and to serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order. Comcast could object to the subpoena and could seek a protective order.
Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. If Comcast produced identifying information, Strike 3 could not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.
The text of the order contains an apparent inconsistency: although the subpoena is directed to Comcast Cable, one notice provision refers to service of the subpoena on AT&T U-verse. The opinion does not explain that reference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.