Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.176.59
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-05473
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Tigar allowed a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s identity before discovery formally began.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unnamed subscriber associated with IP address 23.114.176.59, AT&T Internet, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 23.114.176.59, Strike 3 asked to subpoena AT&T Internet for the name and address of the subscriber assigned the listed internet address.
The court found good cause and granted permission to serve the subpoena before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response, required notice to the subscriber, and gave the subscriber and provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena.
Judge Jon S. Tigar limited use of any disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights and ordered the information kept confidential until the subscriber could seek permission to proceed anonymously.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.176.59 · No. 4:23-cv-05473
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 14, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied without advance notice to the opposing party for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Strike 3 sought information from AT&T Internet, identified as the internet service provider, to learn the true name and address of the defendant associated with IP address 23.114.176.59.
Ruling on the subpoena
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. It granted the application and authorized Strike 3 to serve AT&T with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach the order to the subpoena. The court also authorized Strike 3 to subpoena any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant.
Each provider had 30 days after service to send the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and this order. The subscriber and provider each had 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. If no challenge was filed during that period, the provider would have 10 days to produce the responsive information.
Notice and confidentiality protections
If the provider qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court required it to notify the defendant of the order as provided by 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2). Strike 3 could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The court also issued a limited protective order. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 about a current or proposed defendant had to remain confidential and could not be publicly disclosed until the defendant had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court ruled on that request. The protection would expire if the defendant did not file such a request within 30 days after the information was disclosed to Strike 3.
Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on November 14, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.