Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.132.79.162
- 3:23-cv-01139
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court allowed a subpoena to identify the anonymous subscriber connected to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the anonymous defendant from Comcast Cable or another identified internet-service provider. The defendant and provider may challenge the subpoena within the stated deadlines, and the provider must provide notice and preserve the information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, and asked to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required early case conference. The company said the subpoena would help identify the defendant.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through the process.
The court required notice to the subscriber, gave the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and limited use of the information to the claims in the complaint. The court also ordered preservation of the information and provisional sealing of identifying information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.132.79.162 · No. 3:23-cv-01139
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application—an application made without a prior hearing involving the opposing party—for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena was directed to Comcast Cable, identified in the order as the internet-service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The order allowed the company to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Comcast seeking the defendant’s identifying information. It also allowed the company to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant.
If the provider qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber of the court order. The company could use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Notice and challenge procedures
The provider had to serve the subscriber with the subpoena and the order within 30 days after service on the provider, using any reasonable method, including first-class or overnight mail to the subscriber’s last known address. 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 while production or any timely challenge remained pending.
The defendant’s name and other identifying information had to be filed provisionally under seal. After service on the defendant, the court could require the defendant to seek permission to continue proceeding anonymously. The order addressed discovery and disclosure procedures; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.