Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY #8 APPLICATION TO SERVE SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT BE DENIED. Signed by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros on 3/27/2024. Show Cause Response due by 4/10/2024.(bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2024)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 24-cv-00992-LJC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS, Defendant. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPLICATION TO SERVE SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT BE DENIED Re: Dkt. No. 8 12 13 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s Application for leave to serve a 14 subpoena seeking information intended to identify the defendant in this case, whom Strike 3 15 currently knows only by an IP address. ECF No. 8. 16 The declaration that Strike 3 offers from its general counsel Emilie Kennedy states that the 17 Maxmind database Strike 3 uses to trace IP addresses originally identified Defendant’s IP address 18 as located in San Ramon, California. ECF No. 8-1 at 29, ¶¶ 4–5. Kennedy states that the IP 19 address later “continued to trace to this District,” and that when Strike 3 checked again before 20 filing its Application, Maxmind identified the IP address as located in Pleasanton, California. Id. 21 ¶¶ 6–7. Although both San Ramon and Pleasanton fall within this district, Strike 3 has not 22 addressed potential reasons for that discrepancy in identifying a location or the potential 23 significance of the discrepancy. Strike 3 is ORDERED to file a supplemental declaration 24 addressing that issue, including (but not necessarily limited to) whether the discrepancy calls into 25 question the reliability of: (1) establishing a connection to this district, as is relevant to venue and 26 personal jurisdiction; (2) identifying a specific subscriber as having used the IP address at any 27 given time; and (3) determining whether the same subscriber was assigned the IP address 28 throughout the period of time at issue, i.e., from the first alleged download through anticipated United States District Court Northern District of California 1 service of the subpoena. Strike 3 should also address whether the subpoena it seeks to serve will 2 request subscriber data specific to the period of the alleged downloads or if it instead only seeks 3 the current subscriber. 4 Strike 3’s Application also fails to establish that the entity on which it seeks to serve a 5 subpoena, Comcast Cable Communications (Comcast), is the correct internet service provider 6 (ISP). None of the declarations that Strike 3 has filed in support of its application mention 7 Comcast. A screenshot from Maxmind attached to Kennedy’s declaration lists “Comcast Cable” 8 as the ISP associated with Defendant’s IP address, ECF No. 8-1 at 32, but Strike 3 has not 9 addressed whether Maxmind is a reliable source for that information. Strike 3 also has not 10 addressed whether its previous Maxmind queries (at least one of which identified a different 11 location) consistently identified Comcast as Defendant’s ISP. 12 Strike 3 is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why its Application should not be 13 denied, by filing one or more supplemental declarations addressing the issues discussed above no 14 later than April 10, 2024. Strike 3 may also file a supplemental brief by the same deadline if it 15 believes that would assist the Court. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 27, 2024 18 19 LISA J. CISNEROS United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?