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

Judge
J. Cisneros
Docket
3:23-cv-04349
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge J. Cisneros allowed early subpoenas to identify the internet subscriber linked to an IP address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the defendant identified by the listed IP address from AT&T Internet and potentially other identified internet service providers.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as the subscriber assigned IP address 104.177.35.138. It asked for permission to subpoena the internet provider before the parties held their required early case-management conference.

The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve AT&T Internet with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. It also permits subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response. The information may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint, and additional notice requirements apply if the provider is a cable operator.

Judge J. Cisneros found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for the early subpoena and issued the order on September 11, 2023.

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
Judge
J. Cisneros
Date
Sept. 11, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified in the case caption as “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.177.35.138.” The opinion does not state the specific claims in the complaint.

Court’s Decision

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on AT&T Internet, identified as the internet service provider. The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring the provider to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the provider must comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.

Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The order addresses pre-conference discovery and identifying the defendant; it does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

Disposition

The court issued the requested order permitting the specified third-party subpoenas. The opinion does not separately state that the application was “granted” or “denied”; its operative provisions authorize the subpoenas subject to the listed conditions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.