Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-09958
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rearden granted permission to subpoena Spectrum for Doe’s identity under protective procedures.
Strike 3 may seek John Doe’s name and current and permanent address from Spectrum. Doe may challenge or seek to limit the subpoena and may request anonymous treatment, while Spectrum must follow the notice, preservation, and disclosure procedures in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant, John Doe, alleging that copyrighted films were illegally downloaded or distributed using an internet address. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, to learn Doe’s identity so the lawsuit could be served.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a preliminary copyright-infringement claim, needed Doe’s identity to serve the lawsuit, and had no other way to identify Doe. The court also recognized the risk of mistaken identification and ordered protections for Doe.
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s motion to serve Spectrum with a subpoena. The subpoena may seek Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers; Judge Jennifer H. Rearden also set procedures allowing Doe or Spectrum to challenge the subpoena before information is released.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-09958
- Rearden
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 98.15.69.138. Strike 3 sought permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena—a formal demand for information—on Spectrum, the internet service provider identified in Strike 3’s motion. The purpose was to obtain information identifying Doe so Strike 3 could serve the defendant.
The court stated that Strike 3 alleged that copyrighted films had been illegally downloaded or distributed. Relying on earlier decisions from the Southern District of New York, the court found that Strike 3 had established a preliminary claim of copyright infringement, needed Doe’s identity to effect service, and had no alternative way to determine Doe’s identity.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause to allow the subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The court also found good cause for a protective order because of the risk of false positive identifications that could cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
Ruling and procedures
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 6. The subpoena may seek Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. It may not seek Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers.
Spectrum must serve Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice within 60 days after the subpoena is served on Spectrum. Under the order, Doe has 30 days after being served with the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Spectrum may not disclose identifying information before that period ends. If Doe or Spectrum moves to quash the subpoena, Spectrum may not disclose information until the court addresses the motion and directs Spectrum to resume disclosure.
If no timely challenge is filed, Spectrum has 10 days to produce responsive information. Spectrum must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely motion to quash is pending and may not charge Strike 3 in advance. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. The attached notice also explains that Doe may seek to proceed anonymously and may be represented by a lawyer or proceed without one.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.