Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.188.194.158
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-01168
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Foster granted early subpoena requests to identify anonymous subscribers accused of copyright infringement.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; the 14 unnamed John Doe subscribers, including the subscriber assigned IP address 66.188.194.158; and the subscribers’ internet service providers.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.188.194.158 and 13 related cases, Strike 3 alleged that anonymous subscribers used BitTorrent to download and distribute its copyrighted movies. Strike 3 asked to obtain each subscriber’s name and address from the subscriber’s internet provider before the parties held their required discovery meeting.
The court found good cause for this limited early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had stated a copyright-infringement claim, sought specific information, had no practical alternative way to identify the defendants, and could not proceed without their identities. The court also recognized privacy concerns and imposed protections for the subscribers.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted all 14 motions. Strike 3 may subpoena each internet provider for only the subscriber’s name and address, subject to notice, a minimum 60-day response period, and an opportunity for the subscriber to object or seek protection. Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the information until the subscriber has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.188.194.158 · No. 0:23-cv-01168
- Patrick Schiltz
- May 10, 2023
Background
This omnibus order addressed substantively similar motions filed in 14 related cases. In each case, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution system to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without authorization. Strike 3 said its infringement-detection system linked the alleged activity to an Internet Protocol (IP) address, but it could not identify the person using that address. Strike 3 sought permission to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 requested the subscriber’s name and address so it could identify the defendant, investigate the alleged infringement, and serve the defendant. The order addressed the case involving IP address 66.188.194.158, No. 23-cv-1168, along with the other 13 cases.
Legal standard
The court explained that discovery generally cannot begin before the parties confer under Rule 26(f), unless a rule, agreement, or court order allows it. Courts in the District of Minnesota generally apply a “good cause” standard to requests for expedited discovery, meaning the need for early discovery must outweigh the prejudice to the responding party.
The court applied five factors used in similar cases: 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.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that expedited discovery was warranted in all 14 cases. It found that Strike 3 had sufficiently alleged a copyright-infringement claim by alleging ownership of valid copyrights, copying and distribution of original elements, and lack of authorization. This finding allowed the discovery request to proceed; it did not determine that any Doe defendant actually infringed copyright.
The court found the requests specific because they sought only each defendant’s name and address. It also found no alternative way to obtain the identifying information, determined that the cases could not proceed without the defendants’ identities, and concluded that Strike 3’s right to pursue its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy interests when accompanied by protective measures.
The court recognized that the subscriber associated with an IP address might not be the actual infringer and could be drawn into a case involving sensitive subject matter. It therefore imposed a limited protective order.
Order and disposition
The court granted all 14 of Strike 3’s ex parte motions for permission to serve third-party subpoenas before a Rule 26(f) conference, including the motion in No. 23-cv-1168 involving IP address 66.188.194.158.
Under the order, 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 listed IP address during the alleged-infringement period. The subpoena must provide at least 60 days’ notice before production is required and must be limited to one category of documents identifying the particular subscriber. The internet service provider may seek a protective order if it has a legitimate basis.
The provider must notify the subscriber within 14 calendar days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber then has 45 calendar days from the notice date to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or do both. No other discovery was authorized at that time.
Strike 3 must serve the order with each subpoena, and the provider must send the order with the required notice to the subscriber and certify that it did so. Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced in response to the subpoena until the subscriber has had an opportunity to request permission to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. If the subscriber does not make that request within 45 calendar 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 case by July 12, 2023, without including the defendant’s identity.
Judge
The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.