Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.185.140.128

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 14 similar cases against anonymous John Doe defendants in the District of Minnesota. In each case, Strike 3 alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution protocol to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without authorization. Strike 3 said its infringement-detection system identified Internet Protocol addresses allegedly distributing its works, but Strike 3 could not identify the individual subscribers behind those addresses. It asserted that the relevant Internet service providers could match the addresses to subscriber names and addresses.

Strike 3 asked for permission to serve subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 before the parties held the conference generally required by Rule 26(f). The subpoenas sought limited discovery from the Internet service providers so Strike 3 could learn the defendants’ identities, investigate the alleged infringement, and serve the defendants.

Legal standard and analysis

The court applied the District of Minnesota’s “good cause” standard for expedited discovery, meaning discovery allowed earlier than usual when the need for it, considering the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party. The court also applied five factors used in similar cases: whether the plaintiff showed a concrete initial claim of actionable harm; whether the discovery request was specific; whether other ways existed to obtain the information; whether the information was needed to advance the claim; and the subscriber’s expectation of privacy.

The court concluded that expedited discovery was warranted in all 14 cases. It found that Strike 3 had sufficiently alleged copyright infringement by asserting ownership of valid copyrights, copying and distribution of its works, and lack of authorization. The court also found that the request was limited to each defendant’s name and address, that there was no alternative way to obtain the information, and that the cases could not proceed without identifying the defendants. Although the court recognized that an Internet subscriber might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement and could be implicated in a sensitive matter, it found that Strike 3’s right to pursue its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy interests when subject to the ordered protections.

Ruling

Judge Dulce J. Foster granted each of Strike 3’s 14 motions for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. For each case, Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the relevant Internet service provider seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the identified Internet Protocol address during the periods of alleged infringement listed in the complaint’s exhibit.

The subpoena must give at least 60 days’ notice before production is required and may seek only one category of documents identifying the particular subscriber. The provider must notify the subscriber within 14 calendar days after service. The subscriber then has 45 calendar days from notice to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or do both. Strike 3 must provide the order with the subpoena, and the provider must provide the order with the notice. No other discovery was authorized at that time.

Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced in response to the subpoena until the subscriber has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If no such request is filed within 45 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel, the limited protective order expires. Strike 3 also had to file a status report in each of the 14 cases by July 12, 2023, without including information about the defendants’ identities.