Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.177.35.138

Docket
3:23-cv-04349
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 Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T for identifying information, with notice and challenge protections.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe subscriber from AT&T Internet or another identified internet service provider. The subscriber and provider receive notice and may challenge the subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.177.35.138, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on AT&T Internet before the parties held their required initial case conference. The court found good cause for allowing the subpoena.

The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address, and may also be served on another internet provider identified in response. The provider must notify the subscriber, preserve the information, and allow the subscriber or provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena. The identifying information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.

The court authorized the requested subpoenas and set procedures for notice, challenges, production, and provisional sealing. The opinion is signed by a magistrate judge whose name is not clearly readable in the provided text.

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 104.177.35.138 · No. 3:23-cv-04349
Date
Sept. 11, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application—an application made without the opposing party’s participation at that stage—for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena was directed to AT&T Internet, identified as the internet service provider associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address from AT&T Internet. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also permits 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), it must follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber of the court order authorizing disclosure by sending the subscriber a copy of the order.

Notice and challenges

The provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after the subpoena is served on the provider. Each subscriber and the provider has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber timely challenges the subpoena, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely motion to quash.

Use and sealing

Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information must be filed provisionally under seal. After the defendant is served, the court may require the defendant to ask for permission to proceed anonymously.

The order is dated September 11, 2023, and is signed by a United States magistrate judge. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.

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.