Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.151.10.104

Background

Strike 3 Holdings alleged that it owns copyrights in several adult motion pictures distributed through its Blacked, Tushy, Vixen, and Blacked Raw brands. It alleged that the unidentified Doe defendant used AT&T U-verse’s IP address 99.151.10.104 to download and distribute 34 of those movies through BitTorrent without authorization.

Strike 3 Holdings said its infringement-detection system established direct connections with the IP address, downloaded files containing copies of its movies, and used the BitTorrent “Info Hash” data to confirm the source of the files. It also said geolocation technology traced the downloads to a physical address in the Northern District of California. The IP address did not identify the individual, so Strike 3 Holdings sought permission to subpoena AT&T U-verse for the name and addresses associated with the account.

Legal standard

The court explained that federal civil procedure rules can allow discovery before the usual early case-management conference when there is good cause. Courts assess whether the need for expedited discovery outweighs potential prejudice to the responding party. For a subpoena seeking the identity of a Doe defendant, the court considered whether Strike 3 Holdings: identified a real person who could be sued in federal court; described its efforts to identify that person; showed that its complaint could withstand a motion to dismiss; and demonstrated that the requested discovery was reasonably likely to produce information allowing service of process.

Analysis

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings satisfied all four requirements. First, the allegations that the Doe defendant directed a BitTorrent client to download and distribute the movies sufficiently identified an adult who could be the primary subscriber or someone residing with or known to the subscriber. The alleged activity was traced to the Northern District of California, giving the court a basis to exercise jurisdiction over the federal copyright claim.

Second, Strike 3 Holdings explained that it had traced the activity to the IP address but could not identify the person from that address alone. Third, the court found that Strike 3 Holdings had sufficiently alleged a direct copyright-infringement claim. The court described the requirements as ownership of the copyrighted material and violation of at least one exclusive copyright right, such as reproduction or distribution. The court did not decide whether infringement actually occurred; it found only that the allegations were sufficient at this stage.

Fourth, the court found that AT&T U-verse was reasonably likely to have information identifying the Doe defendant through the IP address.

Protective order

Because the subscriber might be an innocent third party and the allegations involved sensitive and personal subject matter, the court issued a limited protective order. Strike 3 Holdings could not publicly disclose information released by the provider until the Doe defendant had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court ruled on that request.

If the Doe defendant did not seek permission to proceed anonymously within 30 days after the information was disclosed to Strike 3 Holdings’s counsel, the limited confidentiality protection would end. If the Doe defendant included identifying information in a request to proceed anonymously, the court found good cause to allow related papers to be filed under seal while it considered the request.

Ruling and practical effect

The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’s ex parte motion for expedited discovery. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to immediately serve AT&T U-verse with a subpoena seeking the Doe defendant’s true name and addresses, with a copy of the order attached.

AT&T U-verse had 30 days after service to notify the Doe defendant. The Doe defendant then had 30 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge was filed, the provider would have 10 days to produce responsive information. The provider had to preserve subpoenaed information while any timely challenge was pending, and the information could be used only to protect Strike 3 Holdings’s rights described in the complaint. Judge Laurel Beeler’s order authorized identity-related discovery; it did not enter a final decision on the copyright-infringement claim.