Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.204.190.109

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
ADDRESS 71.204.190.109,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-07770-HSG
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SERVE THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA;
ISSUING LIMITED PROTECTIVE
ORDER; CONTINUING INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 7
Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moves ex parte for leave to serve a third-party subpoena
prior to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. Dkt. No. 7. Having considered
Plaintiff’s application, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff has established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third-party
subpoena on Comcast Cable (hereinafter the “ISP”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
See, e.g., UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, No. 08-cv-01193-SBA, 2008 WL 4104214, at *3–6 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 3, 2008); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1–19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6–7 (D.D.C. 2008); see
also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 17-cv-07051-LB, 2018 WL 357287, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal.
Jan. 10, 2018).
2. Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to
provide Plaintiff with the true name and address of the Defendant John Doe to whom the ISP
assigned an IP address as detailed in Complaint and as listed in the case caption. Dkt. No. 1.
Plaintiff shall attach a copy of this Order to any such subpoena.
3. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any
Case 4:26-cv-07770-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of internet services to
Defendant.
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) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly
or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such
cable system, or
(B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any
arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system,
it shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which in turn states:
A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying]
information if the disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court order
authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order
by the person to whom the order is directed.
by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant.
5. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena
served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in its
Complaint.
6. Each ISP will have 30 days from the date of service upon it to serve each of its
subscriber(s) whose identity information is sought with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this
Order. The ISPs may serve the subscribers using any reasonable means, including written notice
sent to the subscriber’s last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight
service.
7. Each subscriber and each ISP shall have 30 days from the date of service upon him,
her or it to file any motions in this Court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or
modify the subpoena). If the 30-day period after service on the subscriber lapses without the
subscriber or the ISP contesting the subpoena, the ISP shall have 10 days to produce to Plaintiff
the information responsive to the subpoena with respect to that subscriber.
Additionally, under Rule 26(c), the Court may sua sponte grant a protective order. See
Strike 3 Holdings, 2018 WL 357287, at *3 (collecting cases). Because the ISP subscriber(s) may
not be the individual(s) who infringed Plaintiff’s copyright, and because of the potential
Case 4:26-cv-07770-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
embarrassment associated with being publicly accused of illegally downloading adult motion
pictures, the Court ISSUES a limited protective order in this case: to the extent that the ISP
releases any name or other personal identifying information regarding Defendant to Plaintiff, such
information shall be treated as confidential and shall not be publicly disclosed until Defendant has
had the opportunity to file a motion with this Court to proceed anonymously and the Court has
ruled on that motion.
If Defendant fails to file a motion for leave to proceed anonymously within 30 days after
his or her information is disclosed to Plaintiff, this limited protective order will expire.
Finally, the Court CONTINUES the October 27, 2026 initial case management conference
to February 2, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom. The Zoom information and instructions remain the
same as previously provided in Dkt. No. 6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
10/15/2026/
Case 4:26-cv-07770-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3