Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against an unnamed defendant identified only as the subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.100.4 (Case No. 3:26-cv-11104-TSH). Because the defendant's true identity was unknown, Strike 3 filed an ex parte application asking for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, the internet service provider, before the parties held a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference, so that it could learn the subscriber's true name and address.
The court treated the request as a motion for early discovery directed at identifying a Doe defendant. It found that Strike 3 had established 'good cause' to serve the subpoena, citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980), and two recent Strike 3 decisions from the same district. At the same time, the court built safeguards into the order to protect the subscriber's privacy and ability to object before any identifying information is produced.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the ex parte motion and ordered that Strike 3 may serve Comcast with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom the ISP assigned the IP address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint, with a copy of the order attached to the subpoena. The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner on any other service provider identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of internet services to the defendant.
The order imposes several procedural protections. If Comcast qualifies as a 'cable operator' under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant, and it must serve the subscriber with a copy of the subpoena and the order within 30 days of service on the ISP, by first-class mail, overnight service, or other reasonable means. Each subscriber and the ISP then have 30 days from service to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena; if that period lapses without a contest, the ISP has 10 days to produce the responsive information. The ISP must preserve all subpoenaed information pending production or final resolution of any timely motion to quash.
Finally, the court restricted how the disclosed information may be used: Strike 3 may use it only to protect and enforce its rights as set forth in the complaint, may not publicly disclose it without leave of court at least until the Doe defendant has had an opportunity to move to proceed anonymously or further discovery has been taken, and must redact and file under seal all references to the defendant's identity until further notice.
Key Takeaways
- The court found good cause for pre-Rule 26(f) discovery and granted Strike 3 leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Comcast to identify the anonymous Doe defendant.
- Strike 3 may also serve the same kind of subpoena on any other internet service provider later identified as serving the defendant.
- The subscriber must receive notice of the subpoena and order, and both the subscriber and the ISP have 30 days to move to quash or modify before the ISP must produce the information within 10 days.
- The ISP must preserve all subpoenaed information while any challenge is pending or until production occurs.
- Any identifying information may be used only to enforce Strike 3's rights in the case, may not be publicly disclosed without leave of court, and must be filed under seal with redactions until further notice.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how courts balance a copyright plaintiff's need to identify an anonymous defendant against the subscriber's privacy interests. Rather than allowing immediate disclosure, the court required notice to the subscriber, a meaningful window to contest the subpoena, preservation of records, and sealing of the defendant's identity, so that anonymity is preserved until the subscriber has had a fair chance to challenge discovery.
For similar Doe-defendant cases in the Northern District of California, the decision confirms that early third-party subpoenas to ISPs may be granted on a showing of good cause, but typically only with safeguards—notice, time to object, preservation, use limitations, and sealing—that protect the subscriber's identity while the case proceeds.