Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-09957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Caproni allowed a subpoena seeking the defendant’s identity, subject to privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s name and address through a limited subpoena. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge the subpoena before any disclosure. The subpoenaed internet service provider must notify the defendant, preserve the information, and follow the order’s disclosure procedures.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to subpoena the internet provider linked to an IP address, seeking the subscriber’s name and address in a copyright-infringement case. The court found good cause to allow the subpoena before the usual scheduling conference.
The court granted the request subject to protections for the anonymous defendant. The defendant may remain known publicly as John Doe, and the provider may not disclose information for at least 60 days after notifying the defendant. The defendant or provider may ask the court to cancel or change the subpoena during that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni also barred settlement discussions before the complaint is served unless the court permits them and limited any disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights in this case. The order did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-09957
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 15, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement. The defendant was identified in the complaint only through the alleged Internet Protocol (IP) address 69.114.176.197. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the name and address associated with the IP address.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause to allow the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference because Strike 3 sought a limited set of specific facts needed to pursue the case. The court also recognized substantial privacy concerns, including the possibility that the provider could identify the wrong person and cause undue annoyance or embarrassment to someone who was not responsible.
Ruling and Protections
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 the defendant initiates settlement discussions.
The order required Strike 3 to serve the Rule 45 subpoena within 14 days. The subpoena may seek only the defendant’s name and address, not a telephone number or email address. The order also allows a similar subpoena to another internet 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 to the defendant. The defendant has 60 days after receiving that notice to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or modify it. The provider may not disclose the information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the requested information.
The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. Any disclosed information may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights stated in the complaint. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 6. This order addressed discovery and privacy procedures; it did not decide the underlying copyright claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.