Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.115.137.109
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-03741
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Hixson granted permission to subpoena an internet provider for Doe’s identity before the parties’ conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 23.115.137.109. The subscriber and the internet service provider received notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.115.137.109 and asked to subpoena the internet provider before the parties held their required initial conference. The court found good cause for the request.
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’ motion. It allowed the company to serve AT&T Internet, and potentially another identified internet provider, with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address.
The order limited how the information could be used, required notice to the subscriber, allowed 30 days to challenge the subpoena, and required preservation of the information. Judge Thomas S. Hixson also required identifying information to be filed under seal.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.115.137.109 · No. 3:23-cv-03741
- Thomas Hixson
- Aug. 17, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.115.137.109. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the complaint.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to subpoena AT&T Internet, identified as the internet service provider. The court granted the motion and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The subpoena had to include a copy of the order.
The order also allowed a subpoena to be served on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant. If the provider qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it had to follow the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order.
Limits and Procedures
Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The provider had to serve the subscriber with a copy of the subpoena and the order within 30 days after being served. The subscriber and the provider each had 30 days after service on that person or entity to challenge the subpoena, including through a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge was filed, the provider would have 10 days to produce the responsive information.
The provider had to preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely motion to quash. Any name or other personal identifying information of a current or proposed defendant had to be filed under seal. The court’s order addressed discovery and identification procedures; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.