Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.112.153.102

Background

This omnibus order resolved substantively similar motions in twenty-one related cases filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. In each case, Strike 3 alleged that an unnamed 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 the alleged activity by an internet protocol address, but Strike 3 could not determine the defendant’s name or address from that information alone.

For the case involving IP address 68.112.153.102, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. Strike 3 sought the subscriber’s name and address so it could identify the defendant, investigate the alleged infringement, and serve the lawsuit.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the good-cause standard commonly used in the District of Minnesota for expedited discovery. Under that standard, the need for early discovery must outweigh the responding party’s potential prejudice. The court considered whether Strike 3 had shown an actionable copyright claim, whether the requested discovery was specific, whether alternative means existed to obtain the information, whether the information was necessary for the case to proceed, and the subscriber’s privacy expectations.

The court concluded that expedited discovery was warranted in all twenty-one cases. It found that Strike 3 had sufficiently alleged ownership of valid copyrights, unauthorized copying and distribution, and the defendants’ involvement in that distribution. The court also found that the requests were limited to each defendant’s name and address, that no alternative means of obtaining the information existed, and that the cases could not proceed without identifying the defendants. The court recognized that the subscriber associated with an IP address might not be the actual infringer and that the allegations involved sensitive subject matter, so it imposed privacy protections.

Order

For the case involving IP address 68.112.153.102, the court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena may seek only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to that IP address during the period of the alleged infringement. The subpoena must provide at least sixty days’ notice before production is required and may cover only one category of identifying documents.

The internet service provider must notify the subscriber within fourteen calendar days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber then has forty-five calendar days from the notice date to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or both. Strike 3 must provide the provider with a copy of the order, and the provider must provide the order and required notice to the subscriber. 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. The order also required Strike 3 to file a status report in each of the twenty-one cases describing the progress of the authorized discovery without identifying the defendant.