Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:19-cv-08239
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Demarchi denied Doe’s motions to quash an ISP subpoena and dismiss the copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may continue seeking subscriber-identifying information from Comcast through the subpoena, while John Doe’s motions to block that discovery and dismiss the case were denied. Comcast is the subpoena recipient.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 76.102.26.213, Strike 3 alleged that Doe used BitTorrent to download and distribute 94 of its copyrighted movies. Strike 3 subpoenaed Comcast, the internet service provider, to identify the subscriber connected to the listed internet address.
Doe asked the court to block the subpoena and dismiss the case. He argued that the subpoena violated his privacy, imposed an unfair burden because Strike 3 had first sued in Florida, and was improper because the complaint did not contain enough facts. The court rejected these arguments, noting that privacy protections were already in place and that early discovery to identify a subscriber was allowed.
Judge Demarchi also denied Doe’s request to dismiss the case under Rule 41(b). The court said Doe had not followed the required procedure for seeking Rule 11 sanctions and had shown no other valid basis for dismissal. The court denied both motions and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213 · No. 5:19-cv-08239
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 13, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 76.102.26.213 for alleged copyright infringement. Strike 3 alleged that Doe used the BitTorrent protocol to download and distribute 94 of Strike 3’s adult-content movies. Strike 3 identified the alleged activity by the internet protocol address maintained by Comcast Cable.
Strike 3 first filed an action in Florida state court seeking information to identify the subscriber. After Doe challenged the subpoena there, Strike 3 dismissed that action and agreed to proceed in federal court. Strike 3 then filed this case and obtained permission to serve an early third-party subpoena on Comcast. The court’s earlier order included protections against public disclosure of the subscriber’s identity without the subscriber’s consent or the court’s permission.
Motion to Quash
Doe moved to quash, or cancel, the subpoena directed to Comcast. He argued that the subpoena violated his privacy under the Federal Cable Privacy Act and could expose him to a coercive settlement even if he was not the alleged infringer. The court found that its prior privacy protections addressed these concerns.
Doe also argued that Strike 3’s Florida filing and later federal filing created an undue burden, caused delay, and risked the loss of information held by Comcast. The court rejected these arguments. It reasoned that the subpoena was directed to Comcast, not Doe, so Doe was not the person required to comply with it. The court also noted that Doe had not independently sought an order requiring Comcast to preserve information.
Finally, Doe argued that the complaint did not satisfy the pleading standard described in Cobbler Nevada LLC v. Gonzalez. That decision held that merely alleging that someone was the subscriber for an internet address associated with infringement is not enough, by itself, to support a copyright claim. The court explained that Cobbler Nevada did not prevent a copyright plaintiff from using early discovery to learn the subscriber’s identity. Because Strike 3 sought the subpoena to try to obtain information needed to plead more than subscriber status, the court denied the motion to quash.
Motion to Dismiss
Doe also moved to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or orders. Doe sought dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for alleged violations of Rule 11 or, possibly, Rule 8.
The court held that Doe had not followed the procedural requirements for a Rule 11 sanctions motion. Those requirements include a 21-day period allowing the challenged filing to be corrected or withdrawn. The court also rejected Doe’s argument that the complaint was legally insufficient, explaining that Strike 3’s request for early discovery was permitted and that dismissal on this ground was premature. The court found no other viable basis for dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Disposition
The court denied Doe’s motion to quash and denied Doe’s motion to dismiss. It also vacated the April 14, 2020 hearing. The order did not decide whether Doe ultimately infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.