Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 21, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.253.4.235

Docket
3:23-cv-06665
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court allowed Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T for the defendant’s identity before the required conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe subscriber from AT&T Internet or another identified internet service provider. The subscriber and the provider may challenge the subpoena within the stated 30-day period, and the provider must preserve the responsive information.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 76.253.4.235, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena AT&T Internet before the parties’ required initial conference. The request sought information identifying the subscriber assigned to the listed internet address.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to serve a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response. The provider must notify the subscriber, and the subscriber or provider may challenge the subpoena within 30 days. The identifying information must be filed under seal and used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.

The court issued this discovery order on February 21, 2024. The court did not decide the underlying claims against the subscriber.

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 76.253.4.235 · No. 3:23-cv-06665
Date
Feb. 21, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application, meaning a request made before the opposing party had participated, for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to AT&T Internet, identified as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint.

Order

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve AT&T with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that Strike 3 attach a copy of the order. Strike 3 may also serve a similar subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant.

If AT&T qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber of the court-authorized disclosure. The provider must serve the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order within 30 days after service on the provider, using a reasonable method such as first-class mail or overnight service. The subscriber and provider each have 30 days after service to file a motion contesting, quashing, or modifying the subpoena. If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while production or a timely challenge remains unresolved.

Confidentiality and disposition

The defendant’s name and other identifying information must initially be filed under seal. After service, the court may require the defendant to ask for permission to proceed anonymously. The court authorized the requested third-party discovery and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint. The order did not decide the merits of those underlying rights or claims. The court issued the order on February 21, 2024.

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.