Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 7, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.226.84.209

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:22-cv-04581
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe Subscriber, Judge Gilliam granted permission to subpoena an internet provider for the subscriber’s identity.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified subscriber associated with IP address 76.226.84.209, and any internet service provider served with the authorized subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 76.226.84.209 and asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case-management conference. The request sought information identifying the person connected to the listed internet address.

The court granted the request, finding good cause to allow a subpoena to AT&T U-verse under the federal subpoena rule. Strike 3 Holdings may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response. The order did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. required the provider to notify the subscriber and gave the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena. Any identifying information produced must remain confidential unless the subscriber has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request.

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 76.226.84.209 · No. 4:22-cv-04581
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Sept. 7, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied without advance notice to the opposing party for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the true name and address of the John Doe defendant associated with IP address 76.226.84.209. The order refers to AT&T U-verse as the internet service provider.

Ruling

The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’ application and found that good cause existed to serve AT&T U-verse with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Strike 3 Holdings may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena on any other service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant. The order does not decide the underlying copyright dispute or determine that the subscriber was the person who infringed any copyright.

Notice and challenges

If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by notifying the subscriber of the court order. Each provider must serve the affected subscriber with the subpoena and this order within 30 days after being served. The subscriber and the provider then have 30 days after service on the subscriber to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.

Confidentiality protection

The court issued a limited protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Because the subscriber may not be the person who infringed the copyright and because of the potential embarrassment from being publicly accused of illegally downloading adult motion pictures, any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 Holdings must be treated as confidential. It may not be publicly disclosed until the defendant has had an opportunity to request permission to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. The protection expires if the defendant does not file that request within 30 days after the information is disclosed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 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.