Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:24-cv-02517
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Intellectual PropertyDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rochon allowed early subpoena discovery from Spectrum, with protections, to identify the defendant in a copyright case.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information from Spectrum; John Doe may challenge the subpoena and remain anonymous; Spectrum must follow the notice, preservation, and disclosure procedures in the order.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only through an internet address, claiming that Doe copied and distributed its copyrighted adult films without permission. Strike 3 asked to contact Doe’s internet provider, Spectrum, before the usual discovery conference to learn Doe’s identity.

The court found that Strike 3 had sufficiently shown a possible copyright claim, requested specific information, had no practical alternative way to identify Doe, and needed the information to serve the lawsuit. The court also considered the privacy interests involved and ordered protections because an internet address could be linked to the wrong person.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Strike 3’s motion. Spectrum may be subpoenaed for Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers; Doe may challenge the subpoena within 60 days and remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02517
Judge
Rochon
Date
July 8, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, described in the opinion as an owner of adult films, filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe. Strike 3 alleged that Doe used internet address 74.65.211.75 to copy and distribute its copyrighted works without authorization. According to the complaint, the internet address had been traced to a location in New York, New York, and Strike 3 could identify Doe only through the internet service provider associated with that address.

Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the discovery conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The motion sought Doe’s identity and contact information so that Strike 3 could serve the summons and complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied a flexible good-cause and reasonableness standard for early discovery. It considered whether Strike 3 had shown a preliminary, legally actionable claim; whether the request was specific; whether other ways existed to obtain the information; whether the information was necessary for the case to proceed; and the privacy interests of the internet subscriber.

The court found that each factor favored early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had made a preliminary showing of copyright infringement by alleging ownership of a valid copyright and that Doe copied elements of the work. The request was limited to the name and address of the person associated with the specified internet address. The court also found that Spectrum was the only available source for identifying Doe and that Doe’s identity was needed for service of the lawsuit and further proceedings. It described the subscriber’s privacy interest in the sharing of copyrighted information as minimal.

Because the subject matter involved copyrighted material and an internet address might falsely identify someone, the court also found good cause for a protective order.

Ruling and Conditions

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve early discovery. Strike 3 may serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The subpoena may not seek Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers.

Spectrum must notify Doe within 60 days after receiving the subpoena by providing the subpoena, the court’s order, and the attached notice. Doe then has 60 days after receiving that notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. Spectrum may not disclose identifying information before that period ends, or while a timely challenge is pending, unless the court orders disclosure. If no challenge is filed, Spectrum has 10 days after the 60-day period to produce the requested information.

Doe may remain anonymous unless and until the court orders otherwise. Information disclosed under the subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint. Strike 3’s deadline to serve the summons and complaint is extended to 45 days after Strike 3 receives the information from Spectrum. Strike 3 must also file status letters every 60 days, beginning by September 6, 2024, describing its efforts to obtain the information and serve Doe. The court warned that failing to file those letters on time may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to close the pending motions at ECF Nos. 8, 10, and 15.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.