Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 73.241.1.145

Strike 3 Holdings · United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division · June 13, 2025 · No. 25-cv-03111-PHK

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants Strike 3 Holdings, LLC leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to serve Comcast with a limited third-party subpoena seeking the name and physical address associated with IP address 73.241.1.145. The Court also issues a limited protective order requiring confidential treatment of information produced in response to the subpoena because of the sensitive nature of the alleged adult-motion-picture copyright infringement and the possibility that the subscriber may be an innocent third party.

Holdings

  1. A court may authorize discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference when the requesting party establishes good cause, and Strike 3 established good cause for the proposed limited subpoena to Comcast.
  2. The court may issue a protective order sua sponte for good cause, and good cause existed to require confidential treatment of information produced in response to the subpoena because disclosure could cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or unfairness concerning sensitive allegations and could affect an innocent third party.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Strike 3 demonstrated good cause for leave to serve a limited third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference to identify the Doe defendant.
  2. Whether good cause existed for the court to issue a limited protective order protecting the confidentiality of information produced by Comcast and preserving the potential subscriber's ability to seek anonymous litigation status.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (26)

  • United States v. Henderson, 906 F.3d(followed)
  • United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500, 510 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 974 (2005)(followed)
  • Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 575, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999)(followed)
  • UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. 08-cv-1193-SBA, 2008 WL 4104214, at *1-*2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)(followed)
  • Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am. Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002)(followed)
  • Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598-99 (1998)(followed)
  • Quinn v. Anvil Corp., 620 F.3d 1005, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Med Vets, Inc. v. VIP Petcare Holdings, Inc., 811 F. App’x 422, 424 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1086, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2012)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 26.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…