Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 102.129.252.102

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed one claim for direct copyright infringement against an unknown individual. The complaint alleges that the individual used BitTorrent to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted adult motion pictures without permission. Strike 3 sought an injunction and statutory damages.

Strike 3 identified the alleged activity through its infringement-detection system and traced the relevant IP address, 102.129.252.102, to a geographic location within the Northern District of California. It asked for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties’ initial discovery conference on Spectrum, the internet service provider associated with the IP address, to obtain the subscriber’s true name and address.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), a court may allow discovery before the usual initial conference when there is good cause. Courts generally consider whether the need for early discovery, in light of the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party.

The court applied four factors for identifying an unknown defendant: whether the defendant was identified specifically enough to show that the person could be sued in federal court; whether the plaintiff described its efforts to identify the person; whether the complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss; and whether the requested discovery was reasonably likely to produce information allowing service of process.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Strike 3 satisfied all four factors. First, based on the complaint’s allegations about BitTorrent and the identified IP address, the court found sufficient specificity to determine that the Doe defendant was a real person who could be sued in federal court. Second, Strike 3 described using geolocation and infringement-detection technology, web searches, computer investigators, and cybersecurity experts.

Third, the court found that the complaint could potentially withstand a motion to dismiss. A direct copyright-infringement claim requires allegations that the plaintiff owns the copyrighted material and that the defendant violated at least one exclusive copyright right. The court accepted Strike 3’s allegations for purposes of this preliminary discovery decision. Fourth, the court found that the internet service provider was reasonably likely to be able to match the IP address to subscriber information that could help identify and serve the defendant.

The court also discussed concerns raised in other cases about the possibility that an internet account holder may not be the person who committed the alleged infringement and may feel pressured to settle to avoid public association with the allegations. The court therefore ordered protective measures for the Doe defendant’s personal information. The opinion states that Strike 3 did not oppose procedural safeguards protecting privacy interests.

Ruling and conditions

The court GRANTED Strike 3’s application concerning the Doe defendant assigned IP address 102.129.252.102. Strike 3 may serve a subpoena under Rule 45 on Spectrum for the defendant’s true name and address and may serve a similar subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response. Strike 3 must attach the order to any subpoena.

The internet service provider must serve the Doe subscriber with the subpoena and the order within 30 days after being served. The subscriber then has 30 days to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to quash or modify it, and may request permission to proceed under a pseudonym with identifying information filed under seal. If the subscriber does not challenge the subpoena within 30 days, the provider may produce responsive information within 10 days.

Strike 3 may use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint. It may not publicly disclose the information without the court’s permission, and references to the Doe defendant’s identity must remain redacted and under seal until further notice. The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while any timely motion to dismiss is pending. This order authorized early discovery and did not decide whether the Doe defendant committed copyright infringement.