Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 17, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.249.130.119

Full caption

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.249.130.119

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:23-cv-03735
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Westmore authorized a subpoena to identify the internet subscriber linked to an IP address, with notice and challenge protections.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the subscriber associated with the specified IP address. AT&T Internet and any later-identified internet service provider must provide notice, preserve responsive information, and may have to produce it. The affected subscriber may challenge the subpoena within 30 days.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 108.249.130.119 and asked to subpoena the internet provider before the parties held their required early case-management conference.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to serve AT&T Internet with a subpoena seeking only the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena later-identified internet service providers for the same information.

The order requires notice to the affected subscriber, gives the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, requires providers to preserve the information, limits its use to protecting Strike 3’s copyright rights, and requires identifying documents to be filed under seal. Judge Awdis A. Westmore issued the order.

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 108.249.130.119 · No. 4:23-cv-03735
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
Aug. 17, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte motion—that is, a motion made without advance participation by the opposing party—for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena sought information identifying the subscriber assigned the internet protocol (IP) address 108.249.130.119.

Order

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to subpoena AT&T Internet, identified as the initial internet service provider. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking only the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response as having provided internet service to the defendant. The court stated that the authorized subpoenas qualify as court orders permitting disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551, provided the subscriber is notified.

Protections and deadlines

Each provider has 30 days after being served to notify each affected subscriber by providing the subscriber with the subpoena and this order. The subscriber and the provider each have 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If the subscriber does not challenge the subpoena within that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information to Strike 3.

Providers must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely challenge. Strike 3 may use disclosed information only to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Documents containing a current or proposed defendant’s name or other identifying information must be filed under seal, following the court’s local sealing procedure. Public redacted filings should redact only the defendant’s name and other personal identifying information.

Disposition

The order authorizes the requested pre-conference subpoenas subject to the stated notice, challenge, preservation, use, and sealing requirements. It addresses discovery of the defendant’s identity and does not decide the underlying copyright claims.

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.