Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 24, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.223.140.58

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:23-cv-00652
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge White authorized early subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to an internet address, subject to notice and confidentiality rules.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the subscriber’s identifying information; the John Doe subscriber and any later-identified subscribers may receive notice and challenge the subpoenas; and Comcast and any later-identified internet service providers must preserve information and follow the order’s disclosure procedures.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.223.140.58 and asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case-management conference. The opinion does not decide whether the subscriber violated copyright law.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. for the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena later-identified internet providers, but the providers must notify affected subscribers, and subscribers and providers may challenge the subpoenas within 30 days.

Judge Jeffrey S. White also required providers to preserve the requested information, limited its use to protecting Strike 3’s copyright rights, and required documents containing identifying information to be filed under seal. The order is an early discovery ruling, not a final decision on the lawsuit.

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 73.223.140.58 · No. 4:23-cv-00652
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Feb. 24, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena sought information identifying the defendant associated with IP address 73.223.140.58. The opinion identifies Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. as the initial internet service provider.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may require Comcast to provide Strike 3 only with the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant. The order treats the authorized subpoenas as court orders allowing disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B).

Notice and challenges

Each internet service provider has 30 days after service to give the affected subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order. Each subscriber and provider then has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber contests the subpoena within that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information. Providers must preserve the subpoenaed information while disclosure or a timely challenge remains unresolved.

Confidentiality and scope

Information disclosed in response to a subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act. Documents containing the name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Public redacted filings should remove only the defendant’s name and other personal identifying information, while the case caption continues to identify the defendant by the assigned IP address.

Effect of the order

Judge Jeffrey S. White authorized limited early discovery to identify the defendant. The order does not determine whether the defendant infringed copyright or 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.