Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.0.78.64
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-06053
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Chen granted early discovery to identify the alleged copyright-infringement defendant through an Internet provider subpoena.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from AT&T Internet and potentially other Internet service providers. John Doe is entitled to the notice and confidentiality protections specified in the order, and the providers must preserve subpoenaed information while any timely motion to dismiss is pending.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 172.0.78.64, alleging that John Doe used BitTorrent to infringe 73 adult motion pictures. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the Internet provider before the parties held their required initial meeting.
The court granted Strike 3’s application and allowed subpoenas seeking John Doe’s true name and address from AT&T Internet and, if necessary, other identified Internet providers. The order required notice to John Doe, confidentiality protections, and preservation of subpoenaed information while any timely motion to dismiss is resolved.
Judge Edward M. Chen emphasized that allowing discovery did not prevent John Doe from seeking dismissal or decide whether the claims were valid. He also reminded Strike 3 that it must assess whether to continue the lawsuit after learning John Doe’s identity.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.0.78.64 · No. 3:23-cv-06053
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 11, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement. Strike 3 alleged that John Doe infringed 73 of its adult motion pictures using the BitTorrent protocol. Because the defendant was identified only by the Internet Protocol address 172.0.78.64, Strike 3 sought permission to serve a subpoena on a third-party Internet service provider before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had sufficiently shown good cause for the early discovery and granted its application. Strike 3 may serve AT&T Internet with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the true name and address of the subscriber assigned the relevant IP address. The court also authorized similar subpoenas to any other Internet service provider identified in response to the first subpoena.
Conditions on the Discovery
The order requires Strike 3 to attach the court’s order and a cited decision by Judge Seeborg to the subpoenas. If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must send John Doe a copy of the order under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Strike 3 must also ask the provider to forward the order to John Doe regardless of whether the provider is a cable operator. If the provider declines, Strike 3 must serve John Doe with the order before or at the same time as any other service or communication to Strike 3, and must file the required request or affidavit on the docket.
Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. It may not publicly disclose the information without the court’s permission until John Doe has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously or further discovery has occurred. Strike 3 must first file an affidavit confirming that it proposed confidentiality to John Doe, including relevant communications. The Internet providers must preserve subpoenaed information while any timely motion to dismiss is pending.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The court stated that authorizing early discovery did not prevent John Doe from filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and did not prejudge that motion. The court also reminded Strike 3 that, after learning John Doe’s name and address, it must determine under Rule 11 whether to proceed with the lawsuit. The order addressed discovery only; it did not decide whether John Doe infringed copyright or whether Strike 3’s claims would succeed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.