Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-09952
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Vyskocil granted permission to subpoena Optimum Online for Doe’s name and address in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the identity and address of the John Doe defendant from Optimum Online. Optimum Online must follow the order’s subpoena and privacy-related requirements, and the defendant’s identifying information may be used only to prosecute this case.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked to subpoena CSC Holdings LLC, identified as Optimum Online, for the name and address of the customer assigned the internet address linked to alleged illegal downloads and distribution of copyrighted works.
The court found good cause for obtaining this information before the parties’ required initial conference. It ruled that the request was limited, Optimum Online was the only entity able to connect the internet address to a person, and the need to pursue the copyright claim outweighed the defendant’s privacy interest.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the motion. Strike 3 may serve the subpoena, must provide Optimum Online a copy of the order at the same time, and may use any disclosed information only to prosecute this case.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-09952
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 16, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 67.80.7.73, alleging that the person downloaded and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted works illegally. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve CSC Holdings LLC, referred to as “Optimum Online,” with a third-party subpoena seeking the defendant’s name and address.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered whether Strike 3 had shown good cause for expedited discovery—discovery allowed before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. Applying the standard described by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court considered whether Strike 3 had shown a concrete prima facie claim of actionable harm, made a specific discovery request, lacked another way to obtain the information, needed the information to advance its claim, and had accounted for the objecting party’s privacy interests.
The court found that the complaint established a prima facie copyright-infringement claim. It also found that the request was limited to the identity and address of one person, that Optimum Online was the only entity able to connect the internet address to a real-world person, and that the claims could not proceed without identifying the John Doe defendant. The court concluded that the defendant’s privacy interest was outweighed by Strike 3’s ability to pursue the alleged copyright violation.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the motion. The order permits Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of the defendant to whom Optimum Online assigned the internet address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 must serve Optimum Online with a copy of the order at the same time as the subpoena. If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Strike 3 may use information disclosed through the subpoena only to prosecute its claims in this action. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 7.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.