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 99.47.71.147

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:22-cv-04614
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryIntellectual PropertyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi granted 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 an AT&T subpoena. AT&T must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order; the subscriber’s identity is subject to limits on disclosure.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.71.147 and asked to subpoena AT&T U-verse before the parties’ required planning conference. Strike 3 said the subpoena could help identify the defendant.

The court found good cause because Strike 3 had identified the defendant specifically enough, described steps taken to locate the person, presented a claim that could survive dismissal, and showed a reasonable chance that discovery would identify the subscriber. The court also noted that Strike 3 had met copyright-registration requirements.

Judge Virginia Demarchi granted the request. Strike 3 may subpoena AT&T for the subscriber’s true name and address, but AT&T must notify the subscriber, and Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce its rights in the complaint. Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the information without the subscriber’s consent or court 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 99.47.71.147 · No. 5:22-cv-04614
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 generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). AT&T was identified as the internet service provider associated with the subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.71.147. The defendant was named as John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.71.147.

Court’s analysis

The court found good cause for early 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 previously taken to locate the defendant; - its action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and - there was a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so that service of process would be possible.

The court also noted that Strike 3 had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The court explained that, although an internet subscriber’s identity alone does not establish a plausible claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement, Strike 3 could seek discovery at this stage to determine the defendant’s identity.

Order

The court granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may serve AT&T with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T assigned IP address 99.47.71.147. 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 the subpoena is served on AT&T. AT&T may use any reasonable method, including written notice sent to the subscriber’s last known address by first-class mail or overnight service.

Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. AT&T may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order. If AT&T provides the subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose that information without the subscriber’s consent or permission from the court. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered the order on September 6, 2022.

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.