Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 31, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.142.155

Judge
Cismeros
Docket
3:23-cv-01125
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cismeros allowed a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s identity while preserving notice and challenge rights.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant associated with IP address 24.130.142.155, Comcast Cable, and any other internet service provider responding to the authorized subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.142.155, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve Comcast Cable with a subpoena before the parties’ required early case conference. The subpoena sought the defendant’s true name and address connected to the listed internet protocol address.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the subpoena, and to serve similar subpoenas on other internet service providers identified in response. The information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.

The order required notice to the subscriber and gave the subscriber and internet service provider 30 days to challenge, quash, or modify the subpoena. Judge J. Cismeros also required preservation of the information and provisional filing under seal of the defendant’s identifying information.

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 24.130.142.155 · No. 3:23-cv-01125
Judge
Cismeros
Date
Mar. 31, 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 requested subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint.

Court’s action

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established good cause to serve the subpoena. The order allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast Cable with a Rule 45 subpoena, provided that the order was attached. It also allowed the same type of subpoena to be served on any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant.

If the provider qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The provider was required to send the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after service. The subscriber and provider each had 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge was filed, the provider would have 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider also had to preserve the subpoenaed information pending production or final resolution of a timely motion.

Limits and disposition

Strike 3 Holdings could use information produced under 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 order stated that, after service, the court might require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.

The order authorized the requested third-party discovery; it did not decide whether the defendant was liable for any claim in the complaint. Judge J. Cismeros issued the order on March 31, 2023.

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.