Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.181.120.247

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the defendant used BitTorrent to download, copy, and distribute 35 digital media files that were similar or substantially similar to works protected by Strike 3’s copyrights. Strike 3’s detection system identified IP address 69.181.120.247 as being associated with the alleged activity.

The court had allowed Strike 3 to subpoena the defendant’s internet service provider to identify the subscriber associated with that IP address. Strike 3 then filed an amended complaint identifying the defendant, with identifying information filed under seal. Strike 3 stated that it connected the subscriber to the alleged infringement through an investigation of the internet provider’s response, publicly available social-media information, information about the subscriber and others who allegedly had access to the IP address, and other files recovered from that address.

Strike 3 served the amended complaint on April 25, 2022. The defendant did not respond, and the Clerk entered default. Strike 3 then moved for default judgment. The defendant did not appear or respond to that motion.

Legal standard

A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend. The court has discretion to decide whether to enter one, and it must independently examine subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and the adequacy of service. The court also considers seven factors, including the strength of the plaintiff’s claim, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, the possibility of a factual dispute, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the preference for decisions on the merits.

Court’s analysis

The court first concluded that service was proper because Strike 3 filed proof that the defendant was personally served at the defendant’s residence. The court also found subject-matter jurisdiction under the federal Copyright Act and personal jurisdiction because Strike 3 alleged that the defendant resided at an address in the district and served the defendant at that address.

The second and third factors—the merits of Strike 3’s claim and the sufficiency of its complaint—were decisive. To establish copyright infringement, Strike 3 had to show that it owned valid copyrights and that the defendant copied original parts of the works. The court found that Strike 3 adequately alleged copyright ownership and alleged that someone using the identified IP address used BitTorrent to download, reproduce, and distribute the works without permission.

The remaining problem was identifying the actual infringer. The court explained that, after learning a subscriber’s identity, Strike 3 could not rely only on the fact that the subscriber was registered to an IP address associated with infringement. Multiple people and devices may use one IP address, so Strike 3 needed additional facts or evidence creating a reasonable basis to conclude that this defendant, and not another person using the address, was the infringer.

The court found that Strike 3’s evidence was insufficient on the record presented. Strike 3 offered general statements that it had conducted a detailed investigation and reviewed publicly available social-media information, but it did not provide evidence showing how that investigation tied the defendant specifically to the alleged infringement. Strike 3 also did not provide evidence that only one BitTorrent client was associated with the IP address. The court therefore could not conclude that Strike 3 had established a copyright infringement claim against this defendant for purposes of default judgment.

Disposition

The court did not reach the other default-judgment factors. Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Strike 3’s motion for default judgment, without prejudice to a further motion if Strike 3 submitted additional evidence tying the defendant to the alleged acts of infringement.