Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.72.247.49

Background

Strike 3 filed fourteen similar copyright-infringement cases against unidentified John Doe defendants. This order addressed the motions in all fourteen cases together. In the case involving IP address 75.72.247.49, Strike 3 alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution system to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without authorization. Strike 3 said its monitoring system detected alleged distribution associated with the IP address, but it could identify the defendant only through that address. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant’s Internet service provider could match the address to the subscriber’s name and address.

Strike 3 sought permission to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on the Internet service provider before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested discovery was intended to identify the defendant, investigate the alleged infringement, and allow service of the lawsuit.

Legal standard and analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the rules, the parties, or a court order allows it. The court explained that expedited discovery may be appropriate when a defendant’s identity is unknown. Courts in the District of Minnesota generally apply a “good cause” test, asking whether the need for expedited discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party.

The court applied five factors: whether the plaintiff made a concrete initial showing of an actionable claim; 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 defendant’s expectation of privacy.

The court concluded that the factors supported expedited discovery in all fourteen cases. It found that Strike 3 had sufficiently alleged copyright infringement by alleging ownership of valid copyrights, copying and distribution of copyrighted works, and lack of authorization. The court also found that the request was limited to each defendant’s name and address, that no alternative means of obtaining the information had been identified, and that the cases could not proceed without the defendants’ identities. The court recognized that an IP-address subscriber might not be the actual infringer and that the allegations involved sensitive material, so it imposed privacy protections.

Ruling

Judge Dulce J. Foster granted Strike 3’s motion in the case involving IP address 75.72.247.49, as well as the corresponding motions in the other thirteen cases. 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 IP address during the alleged infringement period.

The subpoena must provide at least sixty days’ notice before production is required and may seek only one category of identifying documents. The Internet service provider must notify the subscriber within fourteen days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber then has forty-five days from the notice date to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or do both. The provider must give the subscriber a copy of the court’s order, and no other discovery was authorized at that time.

Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the identifying information until the subscriber has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. The order also required Strike 3 to file a status report in each case by July 12, 2023, without including the defendant’s identity. The court authorized preliminary discovery only; it did not resolve the underlying copyright-infringement allegations.