1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-03896-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. QUASH

10 JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP Re: ECF No. 10 ADDRESS 67.180.133.24, 11 Defendant.

12

On May 4, 2025, Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3”) filed this action against 13 Defendant, John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.133.24 (“Defendant”), alleging 14 copyright infringement associated with Defendant’s IP address. ECF No. 1. On May 16, 2025, 15 Strike 3 moved ex parte for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Comcast Cable 16 Communications, LLC (“the ISP”) under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, prior to 17 a Rule 26(f) conference. ECF No. 8. Finding that “good cause” existed, the Court granted the 18 application and allowed Strike 3 may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP 19 to provide Strike 3 with the true name and address of the Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an 20 IP address as detailed in the complaint and as listed in the case caption. ECF No. 9 at 1. In the 21 Court’s order, the Court issued the following limited protective order: “To the extent that the ISP 22 releases any name or other personal identifying information regarding any current or proposed 23 defendant to Strike 3, such information shall be treated as confidential and shall not be publicly 24 disclosed until Defendant has had the opportunity to file a motion with this Court to proceed 25 anonymously and the Court has ruled on that motion. If Defendant fails to file a motion for leave 26 to proceed anonymously within 30 days after his or her information is disclosed to Strike 3, this 27 1 On June 25, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to quash the subpoena served by Strike 3 and 2 to request a protective order limiting discovery.1 ECF No. 10. Strike 3 filed its opposition on July 3 8, 2025. ECF No. 11. Defendant has not filed a reply in support of its motion. The Court will 4 deny the motion to quash the subpoena and grant the unopposed request for a limited protective 5 order. 6 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a court must quash a subpoena, 7 upon timely motion, if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter” or “subjects 8 a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii)–(iv). Motions to quash are evaluated 9 in the context of Rule 26, which states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 10 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs 11 of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 12 controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 13 importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the 14 proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 15 Defendant moves to quash on the grounds that the information sought is “privileged or 16 confidential.” ECF No. 10 at 1. But “[c]ourts have routinely found that there is not a sufficient 17 claim of privilege over one’s name and address in the face of these subpoenas.” Strike 3 Holdings, 18 LLC v. Doe, No. 22-6619,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2022) (collecting cases). 19 “The information sought is not privileged or protected in any way because it was voluntarily 20 provided to the ISP.” Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 19-10252,

, at *5 21 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2020) (denying motion to quash); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 24-2163, 22

, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2024) (“[T]o the extent that Defendant argues that 23 the subpoena should be quashed on grounds of privilege or privacy, a ‘defendant lacks a 24 reasonable expectation of privacy in information that he or she voluntarily shared by downloading 25

26 1 The Court notes that the motion references “the subpoena served on 04/12/2025 by STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC.” ECF No. 10 at 1. The Court is not aware of any subpoena related to this case 27 that was served on April 12, 2025, prior to the filing of the operative complaint. Accordingly, the 1 and distributing Strike 3 Holdings’s movies ‘through a peer-to-peer network[.]’”) quoting Strike 3 2 || Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 21-3319,

, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021). 3 Defendant also contends that the qualities of an IP address “make it impossible to tie an IP 4 || address to anyone in particular” and thus it “could be anyone” who used his internet to infringe 5 || Plaintiffs copyrights. ECF No. 10 at 2. While Defendant’s claim of innocence “may prove to be 6 || true, courts in this and other circuits have consistently rejected the argument that a defendant’s 7 status as a registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity is insufficient 8 to support discovery of the subscriber’s identity where others could have used the IP address.” 9 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 24-3749,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2025) 10 (collecting cases). And any privacy concerns raised by Defendant have already been addressed by 11 the limited protective order put in place by the Court’s prior order. See ECF No. 9 48. 12 Finally, while Defendant did not offer any detail as to what kind of protective order they 5 13 seek, Strike 3 has expressed that it does not “oppose entry of a protective order allowing 14 || Defendant to litigate pseudonymously as ‘John Doe’ until the close of discovery and that the 3 15 information produced by the ISP to Plaintiff be treated as confidential.” ECF No. 11 at 5. 16 Accordingly, the Court amends the limited protective order in this case as follows: To the 3 17 || extent that the ISP releases or has already released any name or other personal identifying 18 || information regarding any current or proposed defendant to Strike 3, such information shall be 19 || treated as confidential and shall not be publicly disclosed. Furthermore, Defendant may proceed 20 anonymously until the close of discovery. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: July 18, 2025 .

23 JON S. TIGA 94 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28