Strike 3 Holding, LLC v. Doe
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an ex parte application for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on an ISP identified only as 'Spectrum' prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to specifically identify the legal entity to be subpoenaed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference“Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a subpoena must be directed to a specific legal entity. 'Spectrum' is a generic term used by multiple unrelated businesses (e.g., agricultural suppliers, real estate firms) and is not the specific legal name of the internet service provider (Charter Communications, Inc. or its subsidiary) that holds the subscriber data. Without proper identification, the subpoena would be invalid or unenforceable. Denying the motion without prejudice allows the plaintiff to correct this procedural defect. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on a recent, identical decision from the same district to establish that the plaintiff's failure to identify the specific ISP entity is a fatal defect in the current motion. The reasoning is direct and the remedy (denial without prejudice) is appropriate for a curable procedural error.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01823-RSH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 v. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A THIRD-PARTY 14 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE address 76.167.182.25, 15 26(f) CONFERENCE Defendant. 16 [ECF No. 4] 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte 20 Application for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. 21 ECF No. 4. 22 Here, Plaintiff has failed to properly identify the entity it is seeking to subpoena. 23 Plaintiff asked the Court for leave to issue a subpoena addressed to “Spectrum” but does 24 not specifically identify which “Spectrum.” See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 25 22cv1626-RSH-MDD, 2022 WL 17363889, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2022) (denying 26 identical motion because “Plaintiff provides no further information about Spectrum, which 27 does not appear to be actively registered to do business in California. [] Active businesses 28 registered under that name in California include Spectrum, LLC, an agricultural supplier, 1 || and Spectrum Inc., a real estate business—not entities likely to provide Defendant's internet 2 || service. [] At least 497 other entities are registered to do business in California under names 3 || beginning with the word ‘Spectrum.””) (internal citations omitted). 4 Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion without prejudice. ECF No. 4; see 5 || Strike 3 Holdings, 2022 WL 173638839, at *2. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion with a 6 ||more specific designation of the entity it is seeking to subpoena. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 7, 2022 9 Wioev tH. Koeln 10 Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28