Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.9.97.246
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-00993
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gilliam allowed an early subpoena to identify the defendant through the internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from AT&T or another identified internet service provider. The defendant and any affected subscriber may receive notice and challenge the subpoena, and providers must follow the order’s notice, production, and confidentiality requirements.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, associated with internet protocol address 99.9.97.246. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the internet provider before the parties held their required initial conference.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena AT&T for the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response. The providers must notify affected subscribers, who may challenge, limit, or cancel the subpoenas within 30 days.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also ordered that any identifying information provided to Strike 3 remain confidential until the defendant has an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. The court granted the application for permission to serve the third-party subpoena.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.9.97.246 · No. 4:24-cv-00993
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 14, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied without advance notice to the opposing party for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena sought the true name and address of the defendant identified in the complaint and caption as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 99.9.97.246.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on AT&T, referred to in the order as the internet service provider. The court authorized Strike 3 to request the defendant’s true name and address and required Strike 3 to attach the order to the subpoena. The court also authorized a similar subpoena to any other service provider identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant.
If the provider qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to follow the notice requirements described in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Each provider has 30 days after being served to send the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and order. The subscriber and provider each have 30 days after service on the subscriber to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or modify it. If no challenge is filed during that period, the provider has 10 days to produce the requested information.
Confidentiality Protection
The court issued a limited protective order because the subscriber might not be the person who allegedly infringed Strike 3’s copyright and because the case involved possible embarrassment from being publicly accused of illegally downloading adult motion pictures. Any name or other identifying information released to Strike 3 must remain confidential and may not be publicly disclosed until the defendant has had an opportunity to request permission to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the defendant does not file that request within 30 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3, the limited protective order will expire.
Disposition
The court ordered that Strike 3’s application for leave to serve a third-party subpoena is granted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.