Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.132.9.182
- A. Cisneros
- 3:23-cv-00233
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge A. J. Cisneros allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from Comcast before a Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the John Doe defendant’s identifying information from Comcast Cable and potentially another identified internet service provider; the defendant and provider may challenge the subpoena within the stated deadlines.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber associated with internet protocol address 76.132.9.182 and asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court found good cause to allow a subpoena to Comcast Cable seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet service provider identified in Comcast’s response.
The order set notice, preservation, and objection procedures, including 30 days to challenge a subpoena. Judge A. J. Cisneros also limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.132.9.182 · No. 3:23-cv-00233
- A. J. Cisneros
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application seeking 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 IP address 76.132.9.182.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider. The order authorized Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requesting the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also allowed Strike 3 to serve a similar subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to the Comcast subpoena. If the provider qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it had to follow the notice requirements in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending the defendant a copy of the order.
Notice and challenges
The provider had to serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena was served on the provider. Each subscriber and the provider had 30 days after service on them to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber timely challenged the subpoena, the provider would have 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider also had to preserve the subpoenaed information until production or final resolution of a timely motion to quash.
Strike 3 could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information were to be filed provisionally under seal. The court stated that, after service, it might require the defendant to seek permission to continue proceeding anonymously. Judge A. J. Cisneros entered the order on February 14, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.