Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 26, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.88.100.73

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:23-cv-03074
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Spero allowed early subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to an IP address, with notice and challenge rights.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the subscriber assigned the listed IP address and may issue related subpoenas to identified internet service providers. The affected subscribers and providers receive notice and may challenge or seek changes to the subpoenas.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required early case-management conference. In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 108.88.100.73, the court found good cause for allowing that request.

The order allows Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T Internet for the name and address of the person assigned the listed IP address. It also allows subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process. The providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge or seek changes to the subpoenas.

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Strike 3’s application. The providers must preserve the requested information, and any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under copyright law; filings containing the information must be under seal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.88.100.73 · No. 3:23-cv-03074
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
July 26, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, an early conference concerning the management of a civil case. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 108.88.100.73.

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on AT&T Internet. The order did not decide the underlying copyright dispute or determine the defendant’s identity.

What the Order Allows

The court granted Strike 3 permission to serve AT&T with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T assigned IP address 108.88.100.73. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar subpoena on any internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant. The order refers to AT&T and those other providers together as the “ISPs.”

The court stated that the authorized subpoenas qualify as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551. Each ISP has 30 days after being served to give each affected subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order. The ISP may provide notice by reasonable means, including first-class mail or overnight delivery to the subscriber’s last known address.

Challenges, Preservation, and Use of Information

Each subscriber and each ISP has 30 days after service on that person or entity to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If that period expires without a challenge, the ISP has 10 days to provide Strike 3 with the responsive information for that subscriber.

Each ISP must preserve the subpoenaed information until it delivers the information to Strike 3 or a timely motion to quash is finally resolved. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Filings containing information about any current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal and otherwise kept undisclosed.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Strike 3’s ex parte application for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order is a discovery-related ruling and does not resolve the merits of the copyright claim.

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.