Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.93.252.130
- Donna Ryu
- 4:22-cv-04006
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Ryu authorized a subpoena to identify the subscriber while requiring notice, confidentiality, preservation, and a chance to object.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe subscriber associated with IP address 73.93.252.130, Comcast Cable, and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.93.252.130, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on Comcast before the parties’ required early case conference. The court found good cause and allowed the subpoena to seek the defendant’s true name and address.
The order also allows subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process. Comcast must notify the subscriber, if applicable, by sending a copy of the subpoena and order within 30 days. The subscriber and Comcast each have 30 days after service to challenge the subpoena, and Comcast must preserve the information while any timely challenge is pending.
The court limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint and required identifying information to be filed under seal. Judge Donna Ryu also ordered that, if no timely challenge is filed, Comcast has 10 days to produce the responsive information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.93.252.130 · No. 4:22-cv-04006
- Donna Ryu
- Aug. 9, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the IP address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that Strike 3 attached a copy of the order. The court also authorized the same type of subpoena to any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Comcast qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). That provision allows disclosure of personally identifiable information under a court order when the subscriber is notified of the order. Accordingly, Comcast must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after the subpoena is served. The order permits reasonable service methods, including first-class mail or overnight delivery to the subscriber’s last known address.
The subscriber and Comcast each have 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, Comcast has 10 days to provide Strike 3 with the responsive information for that subscriber. Comcast must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or the final resolution of a timely motion to quash.
Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. The order also requires the names and other identifying information of current or proposed defendants to be filed under seal. If substantive motions are later filed, the court may require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.
Disposition
The court ordered that it was granting Strike 3’s request to serve the specified third-party subpoena by allowing the subpoena and setting the notice, challenge, production, preservation, and confidentiality procedures described above. Judge Donna Ryu dated the order August 9, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.