Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.59.46.247

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed copyright-infringement lawsuits against 52 John Doe defendants in the District of Minnesota. The court addressed 51 substantially similar motions in this amended omnibus order; the motion in one other case was not addressed because that case had been voluntarily dismissed.

Strike 3 alleged that each defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution protocol to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without authorization. Strike 3 said its infringement-detection system identified the internet protocol address associated with the alleged activity, but Strike 3 could not identify the person using that address. Strike 3 alleged that the internet service provider could match the address to the subscriber’s name and address.

In the case involving IP address 68.59.46.247, No. 25-cv-575, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on the internet service provider before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Rule 26(f). The requested discovery was intended to identify the defendant, investigate the alleged infringement, and allow service of the lawsuit.

Legal Standard

Rule 26(d)(1) generally prevents parties from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless a rule, an agreement, or a court order permits it. The court explained that early discovery may be appropriate when a defendant’s identity is unknown. Courts in the district generally apply a good-cause test, weighing whether the need for early discovery, in light of the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party.

The court applied five factors: whether the plaintiff made a concrete initial showing of a legally actionable claim; whether the discovery request was specific; whether alternative means existed to obtain the information; whether the information was needed to advance the claim; and the responding party’s expectation of privacy.

Analysis

The court found expedited discovery warranted in all 51 cases. First, it concluded that Strike 3 had stated an actionable copyright-infringement claim. The court said Strike 3 sufficiently alleged ownership of valid copyrights, copying and distribution of protected works, and lack of authorization.

Second, the court found the request specific because Strike 3 sought only each defendant’s name and address. Third, it found no alternative way to obtain the identifying information. The court explained that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act subpoena procedure does not apply when, as alleged here, an internet service provider merely acts as a conduit for data transferred between internet users. Fourth, the court found that the cases could not proceed without identifying the defendants.

Finally, the court recognized that the subscriber associated with an IP address might not be the actual infringer and could be drawn into a case involving sensitive and potentially embarrassing subject matter. The court therefore concluded that Strike 3’s interest in pursuing its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy interests only with the protective measures set out in the order.

Disposition and Protections

The court granted Strike 3’s ex parte motion in No. 25-cv-575, as it did the motions in the other 50 cases addressed by the order. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the internet service provider seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the IP address identified in the complaint during the relevant period of alleged infringement.

The subpoena must give at least 60 days’ notice before production is required and may seek only one category of documents identifying the subscriber. The internet service provider may seek a protective order if it has a legitimate basis to do so.

Within 14 calendar days after receiving the subpoena, the internet service provider must notify the subscriber that Strike 3 sought the subscriber’s identity. The subscriber then has 45 calendar days from the notice date to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or do both. The internet service provider must provide the subscriber with a copy of the order and certify that it gave the required notice. No other discovery was authorized at that time.

Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced in response to the subpoena until the subscriber has had an opportunity to request permission to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the subscriber does not seek permission to proceed anonymously within 45 calendar days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel, the limited protective order expires. Strike 3 was also required to file a status report in each of the 51 cases by June 6, 2025, without including information about any defendant’s identity.