Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.149.254.38

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING EX PARTE 7 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUBPOENA BEFORE RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2021)

Case 4:21-cv-03950-HSG Document 8 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10
11

JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
ADDRESS 99.149.254.38,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.

Case No. 21-cv-03950-HSG
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SERVE SUBPOENA BEFORE RULE
26(F) CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 7

12
13

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moves ex parte for leave to serve a third-party subpoena

14

prior to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. Dkt. No. 7. Having considered

15

Plaintiff’s application, the Court ORDERS as follows:

16

1.

Plaintiff has established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third-party

17

subpoena on AT&T U-verse (hereinafter the “ISP”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

18

See, e.g., UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 4104214, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Arista Records

19

LLC v. Does 1–19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6–7 (D.D.C. 2008); see also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe,

20

No. 17-CV-07051-LB, 2018 WL 357287, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2018).

21

2.

Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to

22

provide Plaintiff with the true name and address of the Defendant John Doe to whom the ISP

23

assigned an IP address as detailed in complaint and as listed in the case caption. Plaintiff shall

24

attach a copy of this Order to any such subpoena.

25

3.

Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any

26

service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of Internet services to

27

Defendant.

28

Case 4:21-cv-03950-HSG Document 8 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 3

1
2

4.

If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator,” defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), as any

person or group of persons:
(A)

3

who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or

4

through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such

5

cable system, or
(B)

6

arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system,

7
8

who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any

it shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which in turn states:

9
A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] information if the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the

12

subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed.

13
14

by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant.

15

5.

Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena

16

served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in its

17

complaint.

18

6.

Each ISP will have 30 days from the date of service upon it to serve each of its

19

subscriber(s) whose identity information is sought with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this

20

order. The ISPs may serve the subscribers using any reasonable means, including written notice

21

sent to the subscriber’s last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight

22

service.

23

7.

Each subscriber and each ISP shall have 30 days from the date of service upon him,

24

her or it to file any motions in this court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or

25

modify the subpoena). If the 30-day period after service on the subscriber lapses without the

26

subscriber or the ISP contesting the subpoena, the ISP shall have 10 days to produce to Plaintiff

27

the information responsive to the subpoena with respect to that subscriber.

28

//
2

Case 4:21-cv-03950-HSG Document 8 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 3

1

Additionally, under Rule 26(c), the Court may sua sponte grant a protective order. See

2

Strike 3 Holdings, 2018 WL 357287, at *3. Because the ISP subscriber(s) may not be the

3

individual(s) who infringed Plaintiff’s copyright, and because of the potential embarrassment

4

associated with being publicly accused of illegally downloading adult motion pictures, the Court

5

issues a limited protective order in this case: To the extent that the ISP releases any name or other

6

personal identifying information regarding Defendant to Plaintiff, such information shall be

7

treated as confidential and shall not be publicly disclosed until Defendant has had the opportunity

8

to file a motion with this Court to proceed anonymously and the Court has ruled on that motion.

9

If Defendant fails to file a motion for leave to proceed anonymously within 30 days after

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

his or her information is disclosed to Plaintiff, this limited protective order will expire.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/4/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3