Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.58.207.87
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-04338
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi allowed early subpoena discovery to identify the subscriber tied to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity of the unknown subscriber from AT&T Internet. AT&T Internet must notify the subscriber if it is served and may object or seek a protective order. The subscriber’s identity remains undisclosed in the opinion.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified subscriber associated with internet protocol address 104.58.207.87 and asked to obtain the subscriber’s identity before the parties’ required early case conference. It sought permission to subpoena AT&T Internet, the internet service provider connected to that address.
The court found good cause for early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had sufficiently identified a potentially suable defendant, described efforts to locate the defendant, presented a claim that could survive a motion to dismiss at this stage, and showed a reasonable likelihood that the subpoena could identify the subscriber.
The court granted Strike 3’s application. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi authorized a subpoena requiring AT&T Internet to provide the subscriber’s true name and address, required AT&T to notify the subscriber, limited Strike 3’s use of the information to enforcing its claims, and preserved AT&T’s right to object or seek a protective order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.58.207.87 · No. 5:23-cv-04338
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 12, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on AT&T Internet before the parties held the conference normally required early in a federal lawsuit. The subpoena sought the true name and address of the subscriber to whom AT&T Internet assigned internet protocol address 104.58.207.87.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for allowing the early discovery, relying on standards requiring a plaintiff to show that:
- it can identify the unknown defendant specifically enough for the court to determine that the defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; - it has described steps already taken to locate the defendant; - its claims could withstand a motion to dismiss; and - there is a reasonable likelihood that discovery will identify the defendant so that service of process will be possible.
The court also noted that Strike 3 indicated it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirements for starting an infringement lawsuit. It cautioned that, after learning the defendant’s identity, Strike 3 could not rely only on an allegation that the defendant was the subscriber assigned an internet protocol address associated with infringing activity to state a plausible direct or contributory copyright-infringement claim. At this stage, however, the court concluded that Strike 3 could use limited discovery to determine the defendant’s identity.
The opinion notes a discrepancy in a declaration submitted with Strike 3’s application: Patrick Paige stated that he had read William Williamson’s declaration, but Paige’s declaration appeared to predate Williamson’s declaration by several days. The court nevertheless proceeded based on the application and record before it.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s application and ordered the following:
- Strike 3 may serve AT&T Internet with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the court’s order to the subpoena.
- Within 30 days after the subpoena is served on AT&T Internet, AT&T must serve the subpoena and the order on the subscriber. AT&T may use reasonable methods, including first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address.
- Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
- AT&T Internet may object to the subpoena and may seek a protective order.
The order concerns identity discovery and does not decide whether the unidentified subscriber committed copyright infringement. The order was entered by Judge Virginia K. Demarchi, a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.