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 before the Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena seeks the name and physical address associated with IP address 73.252.130.71 to identify the John Doe defendant in a copyright infringement action. The Court also issues a protective order requiring confidential treatment of information produced by Comcast because of the sensitive nature of the allegations and the possibility that the identified subscriber may be an innocent third party.
Holdings
- A court may authorize discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference when the requesting party demonstrates good cause, including a need for expedited discovery that outweighs prejudice to the responding party. Strike 3 demonstrated good cause for a narrow subpoena seeking the Comcast subscriber's name and physical address.
- At the early-discovery stage, Strike 3's allegations sufficiently pleaded a prima facie claim of direct copyright infringement and could withstand a motion to dismiss.
- Good cause existed for a limited protective order treating information produced by Comcast in response to the subpoena as confidential under the Northern District of California's Model Protective Order for Standard Litigation.
Questions Presented
- Whether good cause existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to authorize a limited third-party subpoena to Comcast before the Rule 26(f) conference.
- Whether the requested discovery was sufficiently likely to identify Defendant Doe and permit service of process.
- Whether good cause existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for the court to issue a sua sponte protective order protecting information produced by Comcast from disclosure and misuse.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (26)
- United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500, 510 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- United States v. Henderson, 906 F.3d(cited)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 974 (2005)(cited)
- 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)(cited)
- 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)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 26.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.