Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against a John Doe defendant identified only by the internet protocol address 24.6.51.29. Before any Rule 26(f) conference had taken place, the plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, the internet service provider that assigned the IP address. The application, docketed at number 8, sought authorization for early discovery so the plaintiff could learn the subscriber's true name and address.
Because the defendant had not yet been identified or served, the application proceeded ex parte, and the court's task was to decide whether the plaintiff had shown sufficient justification to depart from the ordinary rule that discovery waits until after the parties confer. The court's order, filed October 15, 2026, resolved that question and set out a structured process governing service, subscriber notice, and any challenge to the subpoena.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros found that the plaintiff had established good cause to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast, citing UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe and Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19 as supporting authority. The order authorizes the plaintiff to serve a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom the IP address listed in Exhibit A to the complaint was assigned, and requires that a copy of the order be attached to any such subpoena. The plaintiff may also serve any other service provider identified in response as serving the defendant.
The order builds in protections for the anonymous subscriber. If the ISP 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 notifying the subscriber of the order. The ISP must serve a copy of the subpoena and the order on the subscriber within 30 days of service, using any reasonable means including first-class mail or overnight service to the last known address. Each subscriber and the ISP then have 30 days from service to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify; if no one contests within that window, 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.
The order also restricts the plaintiff's use of any disclosed information to the purpose of protecting and enforcing its rights as set forth in the complaint. Finally, the defendant's name and other personal identifying information must be provisionally filed under seal in all filings and not otherwise disclosed, and once the defendant has been served, the court may require him or her to move for leave to proceed anonymously.
Key Takeaways
- The court found good cause for early third-party discovery before any Rule 26(f) conference, relying on recognized Doe-defendant copyright subpoena authority.
- The subpoena is limited to the true name and address of the subscriber assigned the IP address identified in Exhibit A to the complaint, and a copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.
- Subscribers receive meaningful protection: the ISP must notify them within 30 days, and they have 30 days to move to quash or modify before any production occurs.
- If the ISP is a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), disclosure is authorized only pursuant to the court order with subscriber notice under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B).
- The defendant's identifying information must be provisionally filed under seal, and the plaintiff may use disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the standard framework courts in the Northern District of California use to balance a copyright holder's need to identify an anonymous alleged infringer against the subscriber's privacy and due process interests. Rather than simply ordering immediate disclosure, the court layered in notice, a defined window to move to quash, preservation obligations, use restrictions, and provisional sealing.
For practitioners, the order confirms that good cause for expedited ISP subpoenas in Doe copyright cases remains governed by authorities such as UMG Recording and Arista Records, and that compliance with the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551, is an express condition of any disclosure by a qualifying cable operator.