Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.218.234.110

Full caption

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.218.234.110

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:22-cv-07274
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Hixson allowed an early subpoena seeking the defendant’s identity from AT&T U-verse.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings may seek the unidentified defendant’s name and address from AT&T U-verse or another identified internet provider. The subscriber and provider receive notice and may challenge the subpoena within 30 days; the provider must preserve the information and protect it as required by the order.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified by an internet address and asked to issue a subpoena before the parties’ required early case meeting. The subpoena would seek the defendant’s true name and address from AT&T U-verse.

The court found good cause for the early subpoena and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve it. The court also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.

Judge Hixson required notice to the subscriber, allowed 30 days to challenge a subpoena, required the provider to preserve the information, and ordered personal identifying information to be filed under seal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.218.234.110 · No. 3:22-cv-07274
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Dec. 2, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe subscriber assigned internet protocol address 108.218.234.110. Strike 3 Holdings sought information from AT&T U-verse, identified as the internet service provider.

Ruling

The court granted the application after finding that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause. The court authorized a Rule 45 subpoena requiring AT&T U-verse to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings could also serve the same type of subpoena on another internet provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.

If AT&T U-verse qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber of the court’s order. Strike 3 Holdings may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.

Notice and challenges

The internet service provider must serve the subscriber with a copy of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on the provider. The subscriber and the provider each have 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while a challenge is pending or until it provides the information to Strike 3 Holdings. Any name or other personal identifying information concerning a current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal.

Disposition

The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’ ex parte motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order addressed discovery and identification of the defendant; it did not decide whether the defendant infringed Strike 3 Holdings’ rights.

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.