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

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.93.143

Judge
Cisneros
Docket
3:23-cv-01142
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cisneros authorized a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s name and address from Comcast.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified subscriber associated with IP address 24.6.93.143, Comcast Cable, and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, and asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required initial conference.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process and limited use of the information to enforcing Strike 3’s claims.

Subscribers and internet providers have 30 days to challenge a subpoena, and the information must be kept confidential in court filings for now. Judge Lisa J. Cisneros issued the order.

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 24.6.93.143 · No. 3:23-cv-01142
Judge
Cisneros
Date
Mar. 31, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable before the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant was identified in the case by the internet protocol address 24.6.93.143.

Order

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve Comcast. It authorized Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena. The court also authorized a similar subpoena to any other internet service provider identified in response to the first subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.

If Comcast 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. More generally, the internet service provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served. Each subscriber and the provider has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging, quashing, or modifying the subpoena. If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while production or any timely challenge is pending.

Confidentiality and disposition

Strike 3 may 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 must initially be filed under seal. After service, the court may require the defendant to ask for permission to continue proceeding anonymously. Judge Lisa J. Cisneros entered the order authorizing the pre-conference third-party subpoena.

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.