Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-07279
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Broderick granted early subpoena discovery with privacy safeguards and denied as moot Plaintiff’s separate letter motion.
Strike 3 Holdings, the unidentified Internet subscriber associated with the subpoenaed IP address, and the Internet service provider that may receive the subpoena. The procedures also protect a subscriber who may not have been the person responsible for the alleged infringement.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 Holdings alleged that an unidentified person used BitTorrent to download and distribute its films without permission. The company identified the defendant by an Internet Protocol address and sought information from the defendant’s Internet service provider.
The company asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required initial discovery meeting. The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient initial copyright claim and appeared to have no other way to identify the alleged infringer. The court also recognized that an Internet subscriber may not be the person who used the connection.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the motion to serve the subpoena, subject to procedures allowing the subscriber and the provider to challenge it before information is disclosed. The court denied the separate letter motion as moot. The order states different Internet Protocol addresses in different sections, creating an apparent discrepancy.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-07279
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 16, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber associated with an Internet Protocol (IP) address, used BitTorrent to download, copy, and distribute Strike 3’s films without authorization. Strike 3 asserted a claim for direct copyright infringement. The company stated that it did not know the defendant’s identity.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents discovery before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference unless the court authorizes it. Strike 3 filed a motion for permission to serve a subpoena on a third party before that conference, along with supporting materials. It also filed a separate letter motion seeking the same relief.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied a flexible standard requiring reasonableness and good cause for discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. It found that Strike 3 had presented an initial copyright-infringement claim sufficient for purposes of the motion and appeared to have no other way to obtain the alleged infringer’s identity. The court also stated that the case could not proceed unless the defendant was identified.
The court recognized a risk that the person who allegedly infringed the copyrights might not be the person or entity listed in the Internet service provider’s billing records. A single wireless router may serve multiple users, and an unsecured network or public network may allow use by neighbors, passers-by, or members of the public. The court therefore found it appropriate to protect the subscriber’s ability to challenge the subpoena anonymously before disclosure.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena, subject to procedures intended to give the Internet subscriber a fair opportunity to contest the subpoena before identification. The order authorized immediate service of a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on the provider associated with the IP address stated in the order, requiring disclosure of the name and address connected to that address.
The provider must notify the affected subscriber within 15 days after service of the subpoena. The subscriber then has 45 days after service on the subscriber to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a request to proceed anonymously. The provider may not disclose the subpoenaed information during that period. If no challenge is filed, the provider must produce the required information within 10 days after the 45-day period ends. The provider may also challenge the subpoena and must preserve the information while any challenge is pending.
The court denied as moot Strike 3’s separate letter motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at docket entries 7 and 9.
Important Textual Discrepancy
The opinion’s factual discussion identifies the defendant by IP address 173.56.25.164, but the subpoena instruction identifies IP address 69.202.194.200. The opinion does not explain the difference. The order also contains apparent transcription or formatting errors in several bullet points; the summary follows the readable substance of the directives.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.