Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified only as the subscriber assigned IP address 71.204.190.109. Before the parties held their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference, Strike 3 filed an ex parte application, docketed as Document 7, seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the conference. The court resolved the application in a three-page order filed October 15, 2026, in case number 4:26-cv-07770-HSG, signed by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
The requested discovery concerned the subscriber's true name and address, information held by Comcast Cable rather than by a named party. The court therefore addressed both whether early discovery was justified and how the subscriber and internet service provider could respond before identifying information was produced. In finding good cause, the order cited UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, Arista Records LLC v. Does 1–19, and a prior Strike 3 decision from this district. It also weighed the privacy consequences of connecting a named person to allegations involving unlawful downloading of adult motion pictures.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that good cause exists for early third-party discovery and permitted Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Comcast. The subpoena may command the ISP to provide the true name and address of the John Doe subscriber identified in the complaint and caption, and Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to any such subpoena. Strike 3 may use the same procedure for any other service provider identified in a subpoena response as supplying internet service to the defendant. Information obtained through this process may be used only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.
The order builds in notice and an opportunity to challenge the discovery. Each ISP has 30 days after service to give affected subscribers copies of the subpoena and order, using reasonable means such as first-class or overnight mail to the subscriber's last known address. Each subscriber and ISP then has 30 days after service to move to quash, modify, or otherwise contest the subpoena. If that period expires without a challenge, the ISP has 10 days to produce the responsive information. If Comcast qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must also comply with the disclosure conditions of 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including subscriber notice of the court order.
Acting under Rule 26(c), the court issued a limited protective order because an ISP subscriber may not be the person who committed the alleged infringement and because public accusations involving adult films could cause embarrassment. Any identifying information released to Strike 3 must remain confidential and cannot be publicly disclosed until the defendant has an opportunity to seek leave to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. The protection expires if no anonymity motion is filed within 30 days after disclosure to Strike 3. Separately, the court continued the initial case management conference from October 27, 2026, to February 2, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom.
Key Takeaways
- Strike 3 obtained permission to seek the Doe subscriber's name and address from Comcast before the Rule 26(f) conference.
- The subscriber and ISP each receive a defined opportunity to contest the subpoena before identifying information must be produced.
- Strike 3 may use subpoenaed information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
- The subscriber's identifying information initially remains confidential while an anonymity motion may be filed and decided.
- The limited confidentiality protection expires if the defendant does not seek anonymous treatment within 30 days after disclosure to Strike 3.
Why It Matters
The order enables a copyright plaintiff to identify an unnamed subscriber without treating the subscriber's identity as immediately public. Its staged notice, objection, production, and confidentiality requirements make early discovery available while preserving a practical opportunity to challenge the subpoena or request anonymous litigation, a balance typical of John Doe copyright cases in this district.
The decision resolves only the ex parte discovery application and changes the case-management schedule; it does not decide whether the subscriber infringed any copyright. The protective order is expressly limited and temporary, leaving public anonymity dependent on a further motion and ruling.