Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-04985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Stein allowed limited discovery from Spectrum to identify the defendant while protecting the defendant’s anonymity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the John Doe subscriber’s name and address from Spectrum, subject to notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena. The unidentified subscriber may remain publicly anonymous and may seek to quash or modify the subpoena.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 alleged that someone using a particular Internet Protocol address illegally downloaded and distributed its movies. Because Strike 3 did not know the person’s name or address, it asked to subpoena Spectrum, the Internet service provider, before the parties’ required conference.
The court granted Strike 3’s request with limits. The subpoena may seek only the subscriber’s name and address, and Spectrum must notify the subscriber and give the subscriber 60 days to challenge the subpoena. The subscriber may remain publicly anonymous, and identifying information must be filed under seal and otherwise kept confidential.
Judge Gary Stein ruled that the limited early discovery was justified but imposed safeguards because of the risk of mistaken identification and embarrassment. The order addressed how Strike 3 may identify and serve the defendant; it did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-04985
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 21, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant for alleged copyright infringement. Strike 3 alleged that the person using Internet Protocol address 67.245.21.245 had unlawfully downloaded and distributed Strike 3’s motion pictures through the BitTorrent protocol. Strike 3 said that geolocation technology traced the Internet Protocol address to the Southern District of New York, but it could identify the defendant only by that address.
Strike 3 moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena would be served on Spectrum, the Internet service provider, and would request only the defendant’s name and address so Strike 3 could serve the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the factors from a Second Circuit decision concerning early third-party discovery to identify an unknown defendant. After reviewing the complaint, Strike 3’s memorandum, and its supporting declarations, the court found that Strike 3 had made substantially the same factual showing that had supported similar requests in prior related proceedings. The court concluded that the factors favored the requested discovery and that there was good cause for the limited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference.
The court also found that safeguards were warranted because of the potential for embarrassment and the risk that the user of an Internet Protocol address might be incorrectly identified. Applying the factors used to decide whether a litigant may proceed anonymously, the court determined that the defendant’s interest in anonymity favored protection, at least at this stage. The defendant must still disclose identifying information to the court, but may do so under seal.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion with the following limitations:
- Strike 3 may serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena within 14 days of the order. The subpoena may seek only the defendant’s name and address, not a telephone number, email address, or other information. - Within 60 days after receiving the subpoena, Spectrum must provide the subpoena, the complaint, and the court’s order to the subscriber or subscribers associated with the Internet Protocol address and must tell Strike 3 when and how delivery occurred. - The subscriber has 60 days after receiving those materials to file an application challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. Spectrum may not provide identifying information to Strike 3 before that period ends or, if a challenge is filed, before the court resolves the challenge and orders disclosure. - Spectrum must preserve the subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. - If the challenge period expires without a motion, Strike 3 may notify the court and request an order directing Spectrum to release the information. Spectrum may file its own motion to quash during the applicable periods. - Any information released may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint. Strike 3 may not initiate settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although it may participate if the defendant initiates discussions. - The defendant may proceed anonymously as John Doe unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 may not publicly file identifying information, must file documents containing it in redacted form with unredacted versions under seal, and may not disclose the information to anyone else.
The court also directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by October 21, 2024, and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 12. The order did not decide the merits of Strike 3’s copyright-infringement allegations.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.