Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.216.4.65

Judge
Cisneros
Docket
3:23-cv-05487
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Cisneros allowed a subpoena to identify the subscriber assigned the listed internet address before the usual conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC received permission to seek identifying information from AT&T Internet or another applicable internet-service provider. The subscriber associated with IP address 76.216.4.65 and any provider receiving the subpoena received notice, challenge, preservation, and confidentiality protections described in the order.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 76.216.4.65, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required case-management conference. The subpoena would be directed to AT&T Internet or another identified internet-service provider.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to request the defendant’s true name and address. The information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.

Judge Lisa J. Cisneros also required notice to the subscriber, allowed the subscriber or provider 30 days to challenge the subpoena, required preservation of the information, and ordered identifying information provisionally filed under seal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.216.4.65 · No. 3:23-cv-05487
Judge
Cisneros
Date
Nov. 17, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an application asking for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena would be served on AT&T Internet, identified as the internet-service provider, to obtain the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet-protocol address listed in an exhibit to the complaint.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It allowed the plaintiff to serve a subpoena under Rule 45 on AT&T Internet and, if applicable, on another provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant. Any subpoena must include a copy of the order.

If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber of the court-authorized disclosure by sending the subscriber a copy of the order. More generally, the provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after service on the provider, using any reasonable means, including mail or overnight service.

Each subscriber and provider has 30 days after service on that person or entity to file a motion contesting, quashing, or modifying the subpoena. If no subscriber challenges the subpoena during that period, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while awaiting production or resolution of a timely motion to quash. The plaintiff may use information produced in response only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information must be provisionally filed under seal. After service, the court may require the defendant to ask for permission to proceed anonymously.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.