Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant, identified only as the subscriber assigned IP address 89.117.45.84, in the Northern District of California. The order does not summarize the complaint's allegations; it refers only to the first and last alleged infringing acts listed in Exhibit A to the complaint. Because the subscriber's identity is unknown, Strike 3 filed an ex parte application asking leave to serve a subpoena on Cox Communications, the defendant's internet service provider, before the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Absent leave of court, discovery generally cannot begin before that conference, so the application sought permission to identify the defendant early. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen resolved it in a two-page order dated October 14, 2026, stating that good cause appeared. The order offers no extended reasoning on that standard; its substance lies in the conditions attached. It is an interlocutory discovery ruling in an early-stage case, not a decision on the merits, and nothing in it finds that the subscriber infringed anything.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the application on conditions. The subpoena may request only the actual name and address of the subscriber to whom the ISP assigned the listed IP address, covering the period from 14 days before the first alleged infringing act to 14 days after the last alleged infringing act shown in Exhibit A. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena and may not use any information the ISP discloses for any purpose other than protecting its rights as set forth in the complaint.
The order also sets a notice and challenge timeline. Cox must serve the subpoena and the order on the subscriber within 14 days of being served. The return date must be at least 45 days after service on Cox, and Cox may not give identifying information to Strike 3 before that date or before any motion to quash or modify is resolved. The subscriber has 30 days from service to file such a motion in the district where compliance is required, and Cox must preserve the subpoenaed information while a timely motion is pending.
Finally, the order limits public disclosure. If Cox produces the subscriber's information, Strike 3 may not publicly disclose it until the subscriber has had an opportunity to ask this court for leave to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled. If no such motion is filed within 30 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3, this limited protective order expires. If the subscriber includes identifying information in the request, the court finds good cause to file the papers under seal pending a ruling, citing Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-5698, and will direct the subscriber to give Strike 3 a copy and ensure Strike 3 has time to respond. Strike 3 must seek separate leave to subpoena any provider other than Cox.
Key Takeaways
- The court allowed pre-Rule 26(f) discovery to identify an unnamed IP-address subscriber, finding good cause without extended written analysis.
- The subpoena is confined to the subscriber's name and address for a window running from 14 days before the first to 14 days after the last alleged infringing act.
- The subscriber receives notice through the ISP and has 30 days from service to move to quash or modify, with a return date at least 45 days after service on the ISP.
- Strike 3 may use any information obtained only to protect its rights as set forth in the complaint and may not publicly disclose it until the anonymity process runs its course.
- Nothing here adjudicates liability, and the order does not decide whether the subscriber is the person responsible for the alleged acts.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished, case-specific discovery order from a magistrate judge, so it carries no precedential weight. Its value is as an illustration of the safeguards one Northern District of California judge attached to an early subpoena aimed at identifying an anonymous subscriber: narrow scope, notice through the ISP, a lengthy return period, a use restriction, and a staged route to anonymity before public naming.
What remains open is whether Cox will be served and comply, whether the subscriber will move to quash or to proceed anonymously, and, eventually, whether Strike 3 can name and serve a defendant and prove its claims. The order dismisses nothing and enters no judgment; the case continues.