Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 6, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.226.80.185

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:22-cv-04570
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi granted Strike 3 permission to subpoena AT&T for the subscriber’s identity.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity of the John Doe subscriber through AT&T; AT&T must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The subscriber’s identifying information is protected from public disclosure absent consent or court permission.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.226.80.185 and asked to identify the defendant before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) meeting. It sought permission to subpoena AT&T U-verse, the internet service provider connected to that address.

The court found good cause for early discovery. It allowed Strike 3 to serve AT&T with a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s true name and address, subject to notice and privacy protections. The order did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.

The court granted Strike 3’s motion. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi required AT&T to notify the subscriber, allowed AT&T to object or seek protection from the subpoena, and barred public disclosure of identifying information without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission.

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 76.226.80.185 · No. 5:22-cv-04570
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Sept. 6, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on AT&T U-verse before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Strike 3 identified the defendant as John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.226.80.185 and sought the subscriber’s true name and address.

Court’s Analysis

The court found good cause for early discovery. It stated that Strike 3 had shown that it could identify a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court, had taken steps to locate the defendant, had an action that could withstand a motion to dismiss, and had a reasonable likelihood of identifying the defendant through discovery. The court also noted Strike 3’s representation that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirement under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).

The opinion recognized that merely alleging that someone subscribed to an internet-protocol address associated with infringing activity is not enough, by itself, to state a plausible copyright-infringement claim. But at this stage, based on the record presented, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity. The order did not decide whether the subscriber committed copyright infringement.

Order

The court granted Strike 3’s application and allowed it to serve AT&T with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may command AT&T to provide the name and address of the subscriber to whom it assigned IP address 76.226.80.185, and Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

AT&T must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after AT&T receives the subpoena. AT&T may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight delivery to the subscriber’s last known address. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. AT&T may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order. If AT&T provides identifying information, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted the ex parte motion for leave to serve the subpoena. This was an early-discovery order and did not resolve the underlying copyright 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.