Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 16, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.222.12

Docket
3:23-cv-03770
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 allowed early subpoena discovery, with notice and challenge protections, in an order signed by the court.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified subscriber assigned internet protocol address 24.4.222.12, Comcast Cable, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.222.12, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case conference. The court found good cause to allow the request.

The court authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast Cable for the defendant’s name and address associated with the listed internet address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response. The provider must notify the subscriber, and the subscriber and provider may challenge the subpoena within 30 days.

The order limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint, requires the provider to preserve the information, and requires identifying information to be filed under seal. The court issued the order on August 16, 2023; the judge’s name is unclear in the supplied text.

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 24.4.222.12 · No. 3:23-cv-03770
Date
Aug. 16, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought information from Comcast Cable, the internet service provider associated with the internet protocol address identified in the complaint.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena early. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address associated with the specified internet protocol address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet 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 states that it may disclose personal identifying information under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) when authorized by a court order and when the subscriber is notified. The provider must send the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and this order within 30 days after being served. Notice may be sent by first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address, or by another reasonable method.

Each subscriber and the provider has 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or modify it. If a subscriber does not file a challenge within that period, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information to Strike 3. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until it produces the information or any timely challenge is finally resolved.

Limits and confidentiality

Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information must initially be filed under seal. The order states that, after the defendant is served, the court may require the defendant to ask for permission to continue proceeding anonymously.

Disposition

The court authorized the requested early third-party subpoena discovery and entered the notice, challenge, preservation, use, and sealing requirements described above. The supplied text does not clearly identify the judge’s full name.

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.