Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 64.85.241.207
- Joseph Spero
- 3:24-cv-02471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Magistrate Judge Spero allowed early subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; the unnamed subscriber assigned IP address 64.85.241.207; WaveDivision Holdings, LLC; any other internet service provider identified through the subpoenas; and subscribers whose information is sought.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified only as the subscriber assigned IP address 64.85.241.207. The opinion does not identify that subscriber’s name or address.
Strike 3 asked to subpoena the internet provider before the parties held their required early case conference. The court found good cause and authorized subpoenas seeking the subscriber’s true name and address.
Magistrate Judge Spero also required notice to the subscriber, allowed 30 days to challenge the subpoena, required providers to preserve the information, and limited its use to protecting Strike 3’s rights under copyright law.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 64.85.241.207 · No. 3:24-cv-02471
- Joseph Spero
- June 3, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC applied for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, an early conference required in civil cases. The defendant was identified in the caption as “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 64.85.241.207.” The opinion does not provide the subscriber’s true name or address.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to seek the information. It authorized Strike 3 to serve WaveDivision Holdings, LLC with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring WaveDivision to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 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. The order states that these subpoenas qualify as court orders authorizing disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), provided the subscriber is notified.
Notice and Challenges
Each provider has 30 days after receiving the subpoena to notify each subscriber whose information is sought by providing copies of the subpoena and the order. The subscriber and the provider then have 30 days after service on them to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If the subscriber or provider does not timely challenge the subpoena, the provider has 10 days to produce the requested information.
Each provider must preserve the subpoenaed information until it gives the information to Strike 3 or until a timely motion to quash is finally resolved. Information disclosed in response to a subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights under the Copyright Act. The order also states that information concerning any current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal and not otherwise disclosed.
Effect of the Order
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero’s order concerns pretrial discovery to identify an unnamed defendant. It does not decide whether the defendant infringed copyright or resolve the underlying case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.