Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-09948
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Oetken allowed protected subpoena discovery to identify the alleged infringer, while delaying disclosure for 60 days.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek Doe’s identifying information from Optimum Online, while John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena or seek anonymous litigation. Optimum Online must preserve the information and withhold it during the challenge period.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, alleging that Doe distributed its copyrighted movies without permission. Strike 3 asked to obtain Doe’s name and address from Optimum Online, the internet service provider.
The court found good cause for expedited discovery because Strike 3 could not identify or serve Doe without the subpoena. But it also found that Strike 3’s proposed order did not adequately protect Doe, because the internet-address holder might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement and the pornography-related allegations could pressure someone into an embarrassing settlement.
The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena, but required notice to Doe and gave Doe 60 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. Judge Oetken also barred disclosure during that period and while any challenge was pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-09948
- James Oetken
- Feb. 3, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the unidentified defendant, John Doe, distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies in violation of the Copyright Act. The movies contain pornographic material. Strike 3 moved for permission to take expedited discovery from Optimum Online, the internet service provider, to obtain Doe’s name and address.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found good cause to permit some expedited discovery because Strike 3 could not identify Doe or serve him without obtaining information from Optimum Online. The court explained that federal law generally prevented Optimum Online, as a cable operator, from disclosing Doe’s identity without a court-ordered subpoena.
The court also found that Strike 3’s proposed order lacked adequate safeguards. An alleged infringement linked to an internet address does not necessarily show that the subscriber committed the infringement; another person with access to the connection could have done so. The court identified a risk that an innocent subscriber could be falsely identified, forced to defend against unsupported allegations, or pressured into an unjust settlement. It found that risk especially serious because the allegations involved downloading pornographic movies and could cause embarrassment if made public.
Order
The court allowed Strike 3 to conduct immediate discovery from Optimum Online by serving a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 for Doe’s name and current and permanent address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena, and Strike 3 must immediately serve the order on Optimum Online. Optimum Online must then serve the order on Doe using a reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to Doe’s last known address.
Doe has 60 days after service of the order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it, and to request permission to litigate anonymously. Optimum Online may not disclose Doe’s identifying information to Strike 3 before that 60-day period ends. If Doe or Optimum Online files a motion challenging the subpoena, Optimum Online may not disclose the information until the court resolves the motion and orders disclosure to resume.
If no challenge is filed within 60 days, Optimum Online has 10 days to produce the subpoenaed information. Optimum Online must preserve the information while any timely challenge is pending. It must also confer with Strike 3 and may not charge an advance fee; if it charges production costs, it must provide a billing summary and cost report. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF No. 6, the motion for expedited discovery.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.