Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.151.10.159
- 3:23-cv-06063
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court allowed early subpoena discovery to identify the defendant and set notice and challenge procedures.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant assigned IP address 99.151.10.159, AT&T Internet, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to subpoena AT&T Internet before the parties held their required initial conference, seeking the name and address of the person assigned a specified internet protocol address. In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 99.151.10.159, the court found good cause for the request.
The court allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena on AT&T Internet and, if necessary, on another internet service provider identified in response. The information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
The court required notice to the subscriber, gave the subscriber and internet service provider 30 days to challenge, quash, or modify the subpoena, and required the provider to preserve the information. The court also ordered provisional sealing of the defendant’s name and identifying information. The order was issued by the court on December 11, 2023.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.151.10.159 · No. 3:23-cv-06063
- Dec. 11, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application—an application made without the usual participation of the opposing party—for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested subpoena was directed to AT&T Internet, which the order calls the internet service provider, or ISP. The subpoena sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address listed in Exhibit A 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 Rule 45 subpoena on AT&T Internet, attaching a copy of the order. It also allowed the plaintiff to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to the defendant.
If the ISP qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The ISP therefore had to send the subscriber a copy of the order. The ISP had to serve the subpoena and order on the subscriber within 30 days after service on the ISP, using any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to the last known address.
Each subscriber and the ISP had 30 days after service on them to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no subscriber filed a timely challenge, the ISP then had 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3 Holdings. The ISP also had to preserve the subpoenaed information until it produced the information or any timely motion to quash was finally resolved.
The plaintiff could use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. The defendant’s name and personal identifying information had to be provisionally filed under seal. After service on the defendant, the court could require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.