Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-08969
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Caproni granted a subpoena request, with privacy protections, to identify the anonymous defendant in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the defendant’s name and address through a limited subpoena. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge the subpoena before disclosure. The subpoenaed internet service provider must notify the defendant, preserve the information, and withhold disclosure while a timely challenge is pending.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only through an Internet Protocol address, alleging copyright infringement. The company asked to subpoena the defendant’s Internet service provider before the usual early-case conference to obtain the defendant’s name and address.
The court granted the request subject to protections for the defendant’s privacy. The subpoena may seek only the defendant’s name and address; the defendant may remain anonymous, receive notice, and challenge the subpoena before the provider may disclose information. The company also may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint unless the court permits it.
Judge Valerie Caproni found good cause for the early subpoena and directed the Clerk to close the motion. The order did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-08969
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 19, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, whose identity was listed only through the alleged Internet Protocol address 74.101.59.95. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena—a formal demand for information issued to a nonparty—on the defendant’s Internet service provider before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested information was the name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address.
Court’s analysis
Judge Caproni relied on earlier decisions addressing similar requests and found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for the early subpoena. The court emphasized that the request was limited to specific information necessary to prosecute the case. The court also identified substantial privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material and the possibility that the provider could identify the wrong person.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion subject to a protective order. John Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although it may participate if Doe initiates discussions.
Strike 3 must serve the subpoena within 14 days of the order. The subpoena may seek only the defendant’s name and address, not a telephone number or email address, and must include the order and the notice to the defendant. The order also permits a subpoena to another internet service provider identified in response to the first subpoena.
The provider must notify the defendant and provide copies of the subpoena, the order, and the notice. The defendant has 60 days after receiving that notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The provider may not disclose information during that period or while a timely challenge remains unresolved. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve subpoenaed information, and any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit.
The court directed the Clerk to close the open motion at Docket 5. This order addressed discovery and privacy procedures; it did not decide the copyright-infringement allegations.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.