Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 4, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.38.252.185

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:22-cv-05084
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam allowed early subpoenas seeking the subscriber’s identity, with notice, challenges, and confidentiality protections.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.38.252.185; AT&T U-verse; and any other service provider identified through the subpoena process.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 99.38.252.185, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case-management meeting. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person connected to the listed internet address.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T U-verse and, if necessary, other identified internet providers. Providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge the subpoena within 30 days. The court did not decide whether the subscriber infringed Strike 3’s copyright.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also ordered that any identifying information remain confidential until the subscriber could ask to proceed anonymously and the court ruled on that request. The order allowed Strike 3 to use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

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 99.38.252.185 · No. 4:22-cv-05084
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Oct. 4, 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 defendant, identified in the complaint and caption as the subscriber assigned IP address 99.38.252.185.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. It granted Strike 3 permission to serve AT&T U-verse, referred to as the internet service provider, with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 to subpoena another service provider identified in response to the first subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant. If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order.

Notice and Challenges

Each provider has 30 days after being served to give each affected subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order. The subscriber or provider then has 30 days after service on that subscriber to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no motion is filed during that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber.

Confidentiality Protection

The court issued a limited protective order because the subscriber might not be the person who infringed Strike 3’s copyright and because of the potential embarrassment associated with public accusations of illegally downloading adult motion pictures. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 must remain confidential and may not be publicly disclosed until the defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the defendant does not file that request within 30 days after the information is disclosed, the limited protective order will expire.

The order concerns discovery and the process for identifying the defendant; it does not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright or otherwise resolve the merits of Strike 3’s claims.

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.