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 67.160.237.82

Docket
3:24-cv-00431
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court authorized a subpoena to identify the subscriber behind an IP address, with notice and a chance to challenge it.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified subscriber assigned IP address 67.160.237.82, Comcast Cable, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.160.237.82 concerns Strike 3’s request to identify the person associated with a specified internet protocol address. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims beyond referring to the rights asserted in the complaint.

The court found good cause for Strike 3 to serve Comcast Cable with a subpoena before the parties’ required early case conference. The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address, and similar subpoenas may be served on other internet providers identified in the response. The provider must notify the subscriber, who may challenge, change, or cancel the subpoena within 30 days.

The court also limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights, required preservation of the information, and directed that identifying information be filed temporarily under seal. The court issued this order on February 21, 2024; the judge’s name is not legible in the provided opinion text.

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 67.160.237.82 · No. 3:24-cv-00431
Date
Feb. 21, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought information identifying the defendant associated with the internet protocol address 67.160.237.82.

Court’s authorization

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable, identified as the internet service provider. Strike 3 may serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Comcast to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 to serve a similar subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to the defendant.

Notice and challenges

If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 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 provider must serve the subscriber with copies of both the subpoena and this order within 30 days after the subpoena is served. Notice may be sent by first-class mail or overnight service to the subscriber’s last known address, or by another reasonable method.

Each subscriber and the provider has 30 days after service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or modify it. If no subscriber files a timely challenge, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information for that subscriber. The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until it is produced or any timely challenge is finally resolved.

Limits on disclosure and filing

Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The defendant’s name and other identifying information must be filed temporarily under seal. After the defendant is served, the court may require the defendant to seek permission to proceed anonymously.

Disposition

The order authorizes Strike 3 to serve the described third-party subpoenas and establishes notice, challenge, preservation, use, and sealing requirements. The court entered the order on February 21, 2024. The judge’s name is not legible in the provided signature block.

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.