Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.50.82.151
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-03083
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi granted Strike 3’s request to subpoena AT&T for the unnamed subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the unnamed subscriber’s identity from AT&T. AT&T must notify the subscriber and may object or seek a protective order. The unnamed subscriber receives notice and protection against public disclosure of identifying information absent consent or court permission.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 75.50.82.151, Strike 3 asked for permission to subpoena AT&T before the parties’ required early case-management conference.
The court found good cause because Strike 3 had identified a potentially suable defendant, described efforts to locate the person, showed its case could survive an initial dismissal request, and showed discovery could likely identify the subscriber. The court also noted that merely being the subscriber assigned an internet protocol address would not, by itself, establish a plausible direct claim.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted the request. Strike 3 may subpoena AT&T for the subscriber’s name and address, subject to notice, objections, possible court protection, and limits on using or publicly disclosing the information. The order did not decide whether the subscriber was liable.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.50.82.151 · No. 5:23-cv-03083
- Virginia Demarchi
- July 26, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve AT&T Internet, the internet service provider connected to the subscriber assigned IP address 75.50.82.151, with a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested discovery was intended to identify the unnamed defendant.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It determined that Strike 3 had shown: (1) enough information to establish that the defendant was a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) prior efforts to locate the defendant; (3) that the action could withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that discovery would identify the defendant so service could be completed.
The court cautioned that, once Strike 3 learns the defendant’s identity, it cannot rely only on the allegation that the person was the registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity to state a plausible claim for direct liability. At this stage, however, the court concluded that limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity was proper.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application to serve a subpoena. Strike 3 may serve AT&T with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the true name and address of the subscriber assigned the specified IP address, and it must attach the order to the subpoena.
AT&T must provide the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on AT&T. AT&T may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order. Strike 3 may use information produced in response only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. If AT&T provides identifying information, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose it without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission. The order addressed discovery and did not determine the defendant’s liability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.