Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.93.143
- 3:23-cv-01142
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court allowed a subpoena to identify the internet subscriber linked to an IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information about the John Doe subscriber from Comcast Cable or another identified internet-service provider. The subscriber and provider may challenge the subpoena within the stated 30-day period.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.93.143, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Comcast Cable before the parties’ required early case-management conference. The subpoena sought the defendant’s true name and address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the subpoena, and potentially later subpoenas on other identified internet providers. The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint.
The order also required notice to the subscriber, allowed the subscriber or provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and required the provider to preserve the information. The court issued the order on April 17, 2023; the judge’s name is unclear in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.93.143 · No. 3:23-cv-01142
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable before the parties held the conference normally required at the beginning of a federal civil case. The subpoena would seek the true name and address of the defendant associated with internet protocol address 24.6.93.143.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Comcast Cable with a subpoena requiring information identifying the defendant. It also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in Comcast’s response as providing internet service to the defendant.
The order required a copy of the order to accompany each subpoena. If Comcast qualified as a cable operator under the cited federal statute, it had to follow the statute’s notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order. The information obtained could be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint.
Notice and challenges
The provider had to serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after service on the provider. The subscriber and provider each had 30 days after service on them to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel 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 information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely challenge.
The order directed that the defendant’s name and other identifying information be provisionally filed under seal. After the defendant was served, the court could require the defendant to ask for permission to proceed anonymously. The order concerns discovery and identification of the defendant; it does not decide the underlying claims in the complaint. The judge’s name is not clear in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.