Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-02326
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Ho allowed limited subpoena discovery to identify the anonymous defendant in a copyright case while preserving anonymity.
Strike 3 Holdings may obtain the defendant’s name and address through a limited subpoena. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge the subpoena within 60 days. Spectrum must provide notice, preserve the information, and withhold it while any timely challenge is pending.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, who was identified only by an Internet Protocol address, claiming that he downloaded and distributed 34 copyrighted digital media files. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Spectrum, the Internet service provider connected to that address, for Doe’s name and address.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a basic copyright-infringement claim for purposes of this discovery request. It also found that the request was specific, that Spectrum was the only apparent source of the information, and that the information was needed to serve Doe and continue the case. The court recognized the risk of embarrassment and mistaken identification and therefore imposed safeguards.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the motion subject to limitations. Strike 3 may subpoena Doe’s name and address, but not an email address or telephone number. Spectrum must notify Doe, who has 60 days to challenge the subpoena, and the information cannot be disclosed before that period ends or before the court resolves any timely challenge. Doe may remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02326
- Ho
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought this copyright case against an anonymous defendant identified in the complaint by an Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant downloaded and distributed 34 digital media files using the BitTorrent protocol. Strike 3 said it used geolocation technology to trace the address to a physical address in the Southern District of New York, accurate to the zip-code level.
Strike 3 moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 for permission to serve a subpoena—a formal demand for information—on Spectrum, the defendant’s Internet service provider. The requested information was the name and address of the person using the identified Internet Protocol address.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Dale E. Ho applied the five factors used for expedited discovery, meaning discovery allowed before the usual initial case-management process. Those factors consider whether the plaintiff has shown a basic claim, whether the request is specific, whether other ways exist to obtain the information, whether the information is needed to advance the case, and the defendant’s expectation of privacy.
For purposes of deciding the motion, the court accepted the complaint’s allegations as true and found that Strike 3 had shown a basic copyright-infringement claim. The court also found that the request for only the defendant’s name and address was specific, that no readily apparent alternative source existed, and that Strike 3 could not serve the defendant or pursue the action without the information. Although the court recognized possible embarrassment and the risk of falsely identifying an Internet Protocol address user, it stated that courts in the district had found Internet service subscribers to have a limited expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion subject to limitations. Strike 3 may serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s name and address. It may not subpoena the defendant’s email address or telephone number. The subpoena must include a copy of the order and a notice to the defendant.
Spectrum has 45 days after receiving the subpoena to serve the defendant with the notice, subpoena, and order. The defendant then has 60 days after receiving those materials to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. Spectrum may not disclose identifying information before that 60-day period, or while a timely challenge is pending, unless the court orders disclosure. Spectrum must preserve the information while a timely challenge is pending.
The defendant may proceed as John Doe unless and until the court orders otherwise. Information disclosed to Strike 3 may be used only to protect the rights asserted in the complaint. Strike 3’s deadline to serve the summons and complaint is extended to 45 days after it receives the information. Strike 3 may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without court permission, although it may participate if the defendant starts those discussions. Strike 3 must file periodic status letters about its efforts to obtain the information and serve the defendant. The order did not decide whether the defendant actually infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.