Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.226.161.139
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.226.161.139
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-04950
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Chen allowed early discovery so Strike 3 could identify the alleged copyright defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from AT&T Internet through a subpoena. John Doe may challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously, and AT&T Internet must follow the notice and production requirements in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an Internet address, alleging that he used BitTorrent to infringe 44 motion pictures. Strike 3 asked to subpoena AT&T Internet before the parties held their usual first discovery meeting.
The court granted the request. Strike 3 may immediately serve AT&T Internet with a subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and address, but may use the information only to serve him and pursue this lawsuit. The order does not decide whether infringement occurred or prevent John Doe from asking the court to dismiss the case.
AT&T must send John Doe the subpoena and order within 30 days after being served. John Doe then has 30 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously, and Strike 3 may not publicly disclose his identifying information before that opportunity and the court’s ruling. Judge Chen issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.226.161.139 · No. 3:23-cv-04950
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 10, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe infringed 44 of its motion pictures using the BitTorrent protocol. The defendant was identified in the complaint by Internet Protocol (IP) address 108.226.161.139. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve AT&T Internet with a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference, the initial meeting at which parties generally discuss discovery.
Strike 3 submitted declarations stating that the IP address was associated with recorded file-sharing activity, that the files matched Strike 3’s motion pictures, and that the address traced to a location in Santa Clara, California. The opinion describes these matters as allegations and supporting testimony; it does not decide whether John Doe committed copyright infringement.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on reasons similar to those in another Strike 3 case and treated the requested subpoena as limited early discovery. The court allowed Strike 3 to seek identifying information but emphasized that the order did not prevent John Doe from filing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court also did not prejudge any such motion.
The court reminded Strike 3 that, after obtaining John Doe’s name and address, it must reassess under Rule 11 whether it has a proper basis to continue the lawsuit. It cited a Ninth Circuit decision stating that merely alleging that someone is the subscriber assigned an IP address connected with infringement is insufficient, by itself, to state a claim for direct or contributory copyright infringement.
Order and Effect
The court granted Strike 3’s application for limited early discovery and ordered that Strike 3 may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Internet seeking John Doe’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to serve John Doe and prosecute the claims in the complaint.
AT&T Internet has 30 days after service of the subpoena to serve John Doe with the subpoena and this order. John Doe has 30 days after being served with the order to file motions contesting the subpoena. If that period expires without a challenge, AT&T Internet must produce the requested information. Strike 3 may not publicly disclose John Doe’s identifying information until he has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. John Doe may file that request under seal. The order disposes of Docket No. 8.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.