Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is the plaintiff in a case in the Northern District of California against a defendant identified only as the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.225.129. Because the plaintiff does not know who that subscriber is, it moved ex parte, at Docket No. 8, for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order identifies Comcast Cable as the first provider to be subpoenaed, which it calls the Initial ISP Provider.
The order is three pages long and does not recite the complaint's allegations or summarize the plaintiff's supporting papers, and those papers were not among the materials reviewed. Its only reference to the underlying claims is its limit on use of the disclosed information to protecting rights under the Copyright Act. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued the ruling on October 14, 2026. The order is a discovery ruling made at the outset of the case. It does not decide the merits, and it does not find that the subscriber committed any infringement.
The order also invokes 47 U.S.C. § 551, which allows a cable operator to disclose personally identifying subscriber information under a court order if the subscriber is notified of the order.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the request. It found that the plaintiff established good cause to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast Cable, citing UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe and Arista Records LLC v. Does 1–19. The Rule 45 subpoena may command the provider to give the plaintiff only the true name and address of the defendant to whom the provider assigned the IP address, and the plaintiff must attach a copy of the order. The plaintiff may serve the same kind of subpoena on any other service provider that is identified in response as providing internet service to the defendant.
The order sets out a notice and challenge process. The subpoenas are deemed appropriate court orders under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Each provider has 30 days from service on it to serve each affected subscriber with the subpoena and the order, by any reasonable means, including first-class or overnight mail to the last known address. Each subscriber and each provider has 30 days from service on it to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify. If the period passes without a challenge by the subscriber, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information. Any provider that receives a subpoena must preserve the subpoenaed information until it is delivered to the plaintiff or a timely motion to quash is finally resolved.
The order also restricts use and protects privacy. Information disclosed may be used by the plaintiff solely to protect its rights under the Copyright Act. Documents containing the name or other personal identifying information of any current or proposed defendant must be filed under seal following Civil Local Rule 79-5, with public redacted versions redacting only the defendant's name and other personal identifying information. The plaintiff must keep the current caption, including the IP address, but may name the defendant in the redacted portions of sealed documents. Nothing in the order resolves any motion to quash, tests the sufficiency of the underlying claims, or ties the subscriber to any conduct. Those questions remain open.
Key Takeaways
- The court found good cause for early discovery and cited two prior decisions, but the order itself does not explain the facts behind that finding.
- The subpoena is narrow: it reaches only the subscriber's true name and address, not broader information.
- Subscribers receive notice and a 30-day window to move to quash or modify before the provider may produce anything, and providers must preserve the data in the meantime.
- Disclosed information may be used only to protect rights under the Copyright Act, and personal identifying information must be filed under seal.
- The order is a discovery ruling; it does not decide liability or any later challenge by the subscriber.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a magistrate judge in this district can permit early identification of an anonymous internet subscriber while building in protections. The 30-day notice and challenge period, narrow scope, preservation duty, use restriction, and sealing requirements are designed to give the subscriber a chance to be heard before identifying information reaches the plaintiff.
Because the order is short and cites earlier cases without detailed analysis, its value lies mainly in the procedural terms it sets, and it does not itself announce new law. It is an unpublished district court discovery order, not binding precedent.