Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.133.140.169

Docket
3:23-cv-02533
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast for identifying information before discovery, subject to notice and challenge procedures.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the anonymous defendant associated with IP address 76.133.140.169, Comcast Cable, and any other internet service provider identified in response to the subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 76.133.140.169, Strike 3 asked for permission to subpoena Comcast before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The subpoena would seek the defendant’s true name and address associated with the listed internet-protocol address.

The court found good cause for the early subpoena and authorized Strike 3 to serve it on Comcast and potentially on other identified internet providers. The providers must notify the subscriber, preserve the requested information, and allow the subscriber or provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena. Strike 3 may use information produced only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

The court ordered that identifying information be provisionally filed under seal and stated that the defendant may later be required to seek permission to proceed anonymously. The judge is not clearly identified in the provided opinion text; the court issued the order on June 21, 2023.

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 76.133.140.169 · No. 3:23-cv-02533
Date
June 21, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena would be directed to Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the defendant to whom Comcast assigned the internet-protocol address listed in the complaint.

Court’s Analysis and Order

The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause for serving the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Comcast, with a copy of the order attached. It also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in a response as a provider of internet services to the defendant.

If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires Comcast to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber by sending the subscriber 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. The subscriber and provider each have 30 days after service on them 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 awaiting production or resolution of a timely challenge.

Limits and Disposition

Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information must be filed provisionally under seal. After the defendant is served, the court may require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously. The court therefore authorized the requested early third-party discovery subject to these notice, challenge, preservation, confidentiality, and use restrictions.

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.