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

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement complaint against a defendant identified by IP address 69.181.120.247. Strike 3 identified the defendant through a subpoena to the defendant’s internet service provider. The defendant did not appear or otherwise defend against the claims.

The court had previously denied Strike 3’s first motion for default judgment without prejudice to a later motion supported by additional evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged infringement. Strike 3 then filed the motion addressed in this order and submitted a supplemental declaration. The opinion states that the additional evidence included information about the defendant’s rural property and evidence that, after service of the complaint, BitTorrent activity involving the 35 works at issue stopped even though BitTorrent activity did not stop entirely. Some portions of the evidence described in the provided opinion text are redacted or missing.

Legal standard

A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant fails to respond or defend. The court applied the seven factors from Eitel v. McCool, including possible prejudice to the plaintiff, the strength of the claim, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, the possibility of disputed facts, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the preference for deciding cases on their merits.

The court stated that the factual allegations of the complaint, other than allegations about damages, are treated as true after default. It also relied on its earlier findings that service was adequate and that the court had jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the supplemental evidence made it plausible that the defendant was the person who infringed Strike 3’s copyrights. It reasoned that the defendant’s residence on a rural property made it less likely that an outsider was using the IP address, and that the cessation of BitTorrent activity involving the works after service supported the connection between the defendant and the infringement. Taken together with the complaint’s allegations, the evidence supported a claim for direct copyright infringement.

The court found that the remaining Eitel factors also favored default judgment. It concluded that Strike 3 would be prejudiced without a judgment, that the amount sought was reasonable, that the defendant’s failure to appear reduced the likelihood of a dispute about the facts, and that the failure to participate was not excusable neglect.

Relief

The court found a permanent injunction warranted under the Copyright Act. It concluded that the alleged infringement caused irreparable injury, that money damages were inadequate to ensure future compliance, that the injunction would not impose a legally cognizable hardship because it prohibited conduct the defendant had no right to undertake, and that the public interest favored protecting copyrighted works.

The court granted Strike 3’s motion for default judgment. It ordered the defendant to pay $26,250 in statutory damages, calculated as $750 for each of 35 works, plus $766.25 in costs, for a total of $27,016.25. It also awarded post-judgment interest at the legal rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing from the date of the order until the judgment is satisfied.

The injunction bars the defendant from directly, indirectly, or contributorily infringing Strike 3’s rights in the works listed in Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, including by using the internet, BitTorrent, or another online distribution system to reproduce or distribute the works, or make them available to the public, without a license or Strike 3’s express authority. The defendant must destroy unauthorized copies downloaded onto a computer hard drive or server and copies transferred to physical media or devices in the defendant’s possession, custody, or control.

The court retained jurisdiction for six months or until the judgment was satisfied to oversee enforcement and implementation. The order also stated that, unless the defendant filed a motion seeking permission to remain anonymous within 15 days, documents filed under seal would be unsealed and the docket would be updated to reflect the defendant’s name.