Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.152.112.110
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:21-cv-00291
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Beeler granted early discovery, allowing a subpoena to identify the person linked to the internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings may obtain early discovery from AT&T U-verse to identify the Doe defendant, while the subscriber receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena or seek anonymity.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 99.152.112.110 concerns Strike 3 Holdings’ allegation that someone using that internet address downloaded and shared its copyrighted adult movies through BitTorrent. Strike 3 said it could not identify the person associated with the address.
Strike 3 asked to subpoena AT&T U-verse, the internet provider, for the subscriber’s name and address before the usual discovery conference. The court found good cause because Strike 3 had identified a specific alleged infringement, described its efforts to identify the person, shown that its copyright claim could proceed, and shown that AT&T U-verse was likely to have identifying information.
Judge Beeler granted the request for expedited discovery. Strike 3 may immediately serve the subpoena, but the information must remain confidential while the Doe defendant has an opportunity to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.152.112.110 · No. 3:21-cv-00291
- Laurel Beeler
- Feb. 3, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings alleged that it owns copyrights in several adult motion pictures and that the unidentified defendant, using IP address 99.152.112.110, downloaded and distributed copies through BitTorrent. Strike 3 said its detection system connected with that address while the user was using BitTorrent, downloaded files from the user, and confirmed through the BitTorrent file-identification data that the files matched Strike 3’s copyrighted movies. Strike 3 alleged that the address had shared pieces of 61 digital media files that were identical or substantially similar to its copyrighted works.
Strike 3 filed one copyright-infringement claim and asked for permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on nonparty AT&T U-verse. The subpoena sought the name and address of the individual or individuals associated with the IP address. Strike 3 said its own efforts had not identified the Doe defendant.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) allows a court to permit discovery before the parties’ usual discovery conference. Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally require “good cause,” meaning that the need for early discovery must outweigh possible prejudice to the person responding to the discovery.
The court applied four factors for early discovery aimed at identifying an unknown defendant: whether the plaintiff identified a real person who could be sued in federal court; whether the plaintiff described its efforts to locate that person; whether the complaint could survive a motion to dismiss; and whether the requested discovery was reasonably likely to provide information allowing service of the complaint.
Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 satisfied all four factors. Strike 3’s allegations identified a specific person who allegedly downloaded and distributed its copyrighted movies, and the alleged downloads had been traced to the Northern District of California. The court found that the IP address itself was not enough to identify the person.
The court also found that Strike 3 had adequately alleged a copyright-infringement claim for purposes of the early-discovery request. A direct-infringement claim requires allegations that the plaintiff owns the copyrighted material and that the defendant violated at least one exclusive copyright right. Strike 3 alleged ownership and unauthorized downloading and distribution. The court therefore found that the claim was sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to dismiss at this stage.
Finally, the court found that AT&T U-verse could likely identify the person associated with the IP address, making the requested subpoena reasonably likely to produce information needed for service.
Protective order
The court issued a limited protective order because the internet subscriber might not be the person who infringed the copyrights and because the allegations involved sensitive personal matters. Any information released by the internet provider must be treated as confidential for a limited period. Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the information until the Doe defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request.
The court also provided that the Doe defendant may file papers under seal if they include identifying information in a request to proceed anonymously. If the Doe defendant does not file such a request within 30 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel, the limited protective order will end.
Disposition
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’ ex parte motion for expedited discovery. Strike 3 may immediately serve AT&T U-verse with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the Doe defendant’s true name and addresses, and it must attach the order to the subpoena. AT&T U-verse must notify the Doe defendant within 30 days after service. The Doe defendant then has 30 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to quash or modify it. If no timely challenge is filed, the internet provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the information while any timely challenge is pending, and the information may be used only to protect Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.