Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe, who was identified only as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 38.42.86.134. Strike 3 alleged that Doe downloaded, copied, and distributed elements of Strike 3’s copyrighted works using the BitTorrent protocol. The opinion states that Strike 3 owns adult films. Strike 3 also alleged that the Internet Protocol address had been traced to a location within the Southern District of New York and that the address was the only available way to identify Doe.

Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Starry Group Holdings, the internet service provider identified in its motion, before the parties’ required conference about discovery. The subpoena sought information identifying the subscriber associated with the Internet Protocol address.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery generally cannot begin before the parties’ required conference unless the court authorizes it. The court applied a flexible “reasonableness and good cause” standard and considered five factors: whether Strike 3 had made a preliminary showing of an actionable claim; whether the request was specific; whether other ways to obtain the information existed; whether the information was needed for the claim to proceed; and the subscriber’s privacy interest.

The court found that each factor favored early discovery. It found that Strike 3 had made a preliminary copyright-infringement showing by alleging ownership of valid copyrights and unauthorized downloading, copying, and distribution. It found the request narrow because it sought the name and address of the owner of the specified Internet Protocol address. The court also found that a subpoena to the internet service provider was the only available way to identify Doe, that Doe’s identity was needed to serve the lawsuit and move the case forward, and that the privacy interest at issue was limited.

The court also found good cause for a protective order because of the subject matter of the copyrighted material and the risk that an Internet Protocol address could falsely identify the defendant.

Order

The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It authorized Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Starry to obtain John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The subpoena could not seek Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers.

The order requires Starry to notify Doe by providing a copy of the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice within 60 days after the subpoena is served. Doe then has 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or modify it. Starry may not provide identifying information to Strike 3 before that period expires. If Doe or Starry files such a motion, Starry must wait for a further court order before providing the information. If no challenge is filed, Starry has 10 days after the 60-day period to provide the responsive information.

The order requires Starry to preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely challenge is pending. It allows Doe to proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise, limits any disclosed information to use in protecting Strike 3’s rights asserted in the complaint, and extends Strike 3’s time to serve the summons and complaint until 45 days after Strike 3 receives the information. Strike 3 must also file status letters every 60 days, beginning December 22, 2025, describing its efforts to obtain the information and serve Doe. The order states that failing to file those letters on time may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The ruling authorized discovery to identify the defendant; it did not decide whether John Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.