Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.45.118.189
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-04930
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from internet providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe subscriber, Comcast Cable, and any additional internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber identified by an internet protocol address and asked for permission to subpoena Comcast before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference.
The court found good cause and granted the application. Strike 3 may subpoena Comcast for the defendant’s true name and address and may subpoena any additional internet provider identified in Comcast’s response.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. required notice to the subscriber, gave the subscriber and providers 30 days to challenge a subpoena, and limited disclosure of the identifying information while allowing the subscriber to seek permission to proceed anonymously.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.45.118.189 · No. 4:23-cv-04930
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 19, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena would be directed to Comcast Cable, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the John Doe defendant associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint and case caption.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” and granted its ex parte application. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena for the defendant’s identifying information. Strike 3 may also serve the same type of subpoena on any other service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant. Strike 3 must attach the order to each subpoena.
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), which allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. Each provider has 30 days after service to send the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and order. The subscriber or provider then has 30 days after service to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to quash or modify it. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information.
Protection of Identifying Information
The court limited Strike 3’s use of information obtained through the subpoena to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in its complaint. The information must be treated as confidential and may not be publicly disclosed until the defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the defendant does not seek permission to proceed anonymously within 30 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3, that limited protective order will expire. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order and entered it on October 19, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.