Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.126.177.109
- Cisneros
- 3:23-cv-03075
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cisneros allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identifying information from internet service providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information through Rule 45 subpoenas. AT&T Internet, any later-identified internet service provider, and the subscriber are affected by the notice, preservation, disclosure, and challenge procedures.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 23.126.177.109, the plaintiff asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case-management conference. The court found good cause for that request.
The court allowed the plaintiff to subpoena AT&T Internet for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena any later-identified internet service provider. The providers must notify the subscriber, who may challenge the subpoena within 30 days. The identifying information must be filed under seal and used only to protect and enforce the plaintiff’s rights in the complaint.
Judge Lisa J. Cisneros issued the order on July 26, 2023. The order grants the plaintiff’s request for permission to serve the third-party subpoena and sets procedures for notice, challenges, preservation, and possible disclosure.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.126.177.109 · No. 3:23-cv-03075
- Cisneros
- July 26, 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 AT&T Internet, identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena requiring the provider to disclose the true name and address of the defendant to whom the provider assigned the internet protocol address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint. Any subpoena must include a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.
If the provider qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). That provision allows disclosure of personal identifying information pursuant to a court order when the subscriber is notified of the order by the person receiving it. The provider must therefore send the defendant a copy of the order.
Notice and challenge procedures
The provider must serve the subscriber with copies of both the subpoena and the order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on the provider. The provider may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
The subscriber and the provider each have 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber files a challenge during that period, the provider has an additional 10 days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until it is produced or any timely motion to quash is finally resolved.
Confidentiality and disposition
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. Judge Lisa J. Cisneros ordered these procedures and stated, “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.