1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-03464-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 9 v. SERVE SUBPOENA BEFORE RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE 10 JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.5.198.67, Re: Dkt. No. 7 11 Defendant. 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 Comcast Cable (the “ISP”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. See, e.g., 18 UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe,

, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Arista Records LLC v. 19 Does 1–19,

, 6–7 (D.D.C. 2008); see also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 20 17-CV-07051-LB,

, 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 other service provider that is identified in response to the subpoena as a provider of Internet 27 services to Defendant. 1 4. If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator,” defined by

(5), as any person 2 or group of persons: 3 (A) 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 6 (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any 7 arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system, 8 it shall comply with

(c)(2)(B), which in turn states: 9 10 A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] information if the 11 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 Additionally, under Rule 26(c), the Court may sua sponte grant a protective order. See 19 Strike 3 Holdings,

, at *3. Because the ISP subscriber(s) may not be the 20 individual(s) who infringed Plaintiff’s copyright, and because of the potential embarrassment 21 associated with being publicly accused of illegally downloading adult motion pictures, the Court 22 issues a limited protective order in this case: To the extent that the ISP releases any name or other 23 personal identifying information regarding Defendant to Plaintiff, such information shall be 24 treated as confidential and shall not be publicly disclosed until Defendant has had the opportunity 25 to file a motion with this Court to proceed anonymously and the Court has ruled on that motion. 26 // 27 // 1 If Defendant fails to file a motion for leave to proceed anonymously within 30 days after 2 || his or her information is disclosed to Plaintiff, this limited protective order will expire. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: 5/25/2021 Abepwerd 5 Mb | HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28