Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-05668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Broderick allowed early subpoena discovery but protected the subscriber’s identity before disclosure.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity of the subscriber associated with Internet Protocol address 69.202.194.200. The subscriber and the Internet service provider receive procedures allowing the subpoena to be challenged before identifying information is disclosed.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe concerns Strike 3’s claim that an unidentified person used BitTorrent to download and distribute its films without permission. The defendant was identified only by the Internet Protocol address allegedly connected to that activity.
Strike 3 asked to subpoena the Internet service provider before the parties’ required early case meeting, so it could learn the subscriber’s name and address. The court found that Strike 3 had made a preliminary copyright-infringement showing and appeared to have no other way to identify the defendant.
Judge Broderick granted the motion. The provider must notify the subscriber, who has 45 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously; the provider may not disclose identifying information during that period or while a challenge is pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-05668
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 16, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe used the BitTorrent file-sharing network to download and distribute Strike 3’s films without authorization. Strike 3 asserted a claim for direct copyright infringement. The complaint identified the defendant only by the Internet Protocol address allegedly associated with the activity: 69.202.194.200.
Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s Internet service provider before the parties held the conference generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the flexible standard of reasonableness and good cause used for requests to obtain discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. It found that Strike 3 had stated a preliminary copyright-infringement claim sufficient for purposes of the motion and appeared to have no other way to learn the alleged infringer’s identity. Without identifying the defendant, the court concluded, the litigation could not proceed.
The court also recognized that the subscriber listed in an Internet service provider’s records might not be the person who engaged in the alleged infringement. A single wireless router may serve multiple users, and an unsecured network or a public network may be used by people whose names are not connected to the billing records. The court noted the risk that an innocent subscriber could face pressure to settle because of allegations involving pornographic films.
Ruling and Procedure
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Strike 3’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena, subject to procedures designed to give the Internet subscriber a fair opportunity to challenge the subpoena before the subscriber’s identity is disclosed.
The order provides that:
- Strike 3 may immediately serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on the Internet service provider seeking the name and address associated with Internet Protocol address 69.202.194.200. - The provider must serve the subscriber with the subpoena and the court’s order within 15 days after receiving the subpoena. - The subscriber has 45 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to litigate anonymously. The provider may not disclose subpoenaed information to Strike 3 during that period. - If the subscriber does not file a challenge during the 45-day period, the provider must produce the information needed to comply with the subpoena within 10 days after that period ends. - The provider may also challenge the subpoena, but its filings must not reveal the subscriber’s identifying information to Strike 3. The provider must not disclose the information while such a challenge is pending and must preserve the information until the court resolves the challenge and orders disclosure.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.