Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.187.188.63
- Edward Davila
- 5:23-cv-04931
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Davila granted permission for limited early discovery to identify the defendant through AT&T.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information from AT&T about the subscriber assigned the listed IP address. The subscriber receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena, while AT&T must preserve and potentially produce responsive information under the order.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 104.187.188.63, Strike 3 said the unidentified subscriber used BitTorrent to download and share 53 of its movies. Strike 3 knew the subscriber only by the listed Internet Protocol address and asked to learn the person's identity from Internet provider AT&T.
The court found good cause for the early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had identified a potentially real defendant, described its efforts to investigate, stated the essential parts of a copyright-infringement claim, and showed that AT&T likely had information that could help identify and serve the defendant.
Judge Davila granted Strike 3's application. The order allows Strike 3 to immediately serve AT&T with a subpoena seeking the subscriber's name, address, telephone number, and email address. The subscriber has 30 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena, and any information produced may be used only to protect Strike 3's rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.187.188.63 · No. 5:23-cv-04931
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 19, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the unidentified subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 104.187.188.63 used BitTorrent to download and distribute 53 movies owned by Strike 3. Strike 3 said it could not identify the subscriber by name and that AT&T Internet, the Internet service provider, could provide identifying information.
Strike 3 asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T before the parties held the usual conference about discovery. The requested discovery was intended to identify the subscriber, further investigate the alleged infringement, and allow service of the lawsuit.
Legal standard
The court explained that early discovery may be allowed when it serves convenience and the interests of justice. Courts generally require a showing of “good cause.” The court applied four factors: whether the Doe defendant was identified specifically enough to show that the person could be sued in federal court; whether the plaintiff described its efforts to identify the person; whether the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss; and whether the requested discovery was likely to produce information that would permit service of process.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Strike 3 satisfied all four factors. First, Strike 3 provided the IP address on the date it alleged the infringement occurred. Second, Strike 3 described searches of the IP address and its review of reports, agency websites, technology guides, case law, and consultations with computer investigators and cybersecurity consultants. Third, the court found that Strike 3 had pleaded the essential elements of copyright infringement. Fourth, the court found that AT&T was likely to have the subscriber’s true name and address.
The court also found that the limited discovery would further the interests of justice and would cause little inconvenience to AT&T.
Order
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s application for expedited discovery. Strike 3 may immediately serve AT&T with a Rule 45 subpoena, accompanied by a copy of the order, seeking the defendant’s name, address, telephone number, and email address.
AT&T must notify the subscriber within 30 days after service of the subpoena. The subscriber then has 30 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge is filed, AT&T must produce responsive information within 10 days. AT&T must preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely motion to quash is resolved. The information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.