Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.245.33.46

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 21 similar copyright-infringement cases against unidentified John Doe defendants in the District of Minnesota. The defendant in this case was identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned IP address 24.245.33.46. Strike 3 alleged that each 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 involved in distributing its copyrighted works. Because Strike 3 did not know the defendants’ names, it alleged that the relevant internet service providers could identify them by matching the IP addresses to subscriber information.

Motion and legal standard

Strike 3 asked for permission to serve subpoenas on the internet service providers before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). This is a request for expedited discovery—information obtained earlier than the usual discovery schedule allows—and was made without notifying the unidentified defendants first.

The court applied a good-cause standard, weighing whether the need for early discovery outweighed prejudice to the responding party. It considered five factors: whether Strike 3 showed a concrete initial claim, whether the discovery request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed to advance the claims, and the defendants’ privacy interests.

Court’s analysis

The court found expedited discovery appropriate in all 21 cases. It concluded that Strike 3 had sufficiently alleged copyright infringement by claiming ownership of valid copyrights, copying and distribution by each defendant, and lack of authorization. The court also found that the requests were specific because they sought only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to each identified IP address during the alleged infringement period.

The court found no alternative way to identify the defendants and concluded that the cases could not proceed without their identities. It recognized that the subscriber associated with an IP address might not be the actual infringer and that the allegations involved sensitive and potentially embarrassing material. Even so, the court concluded that Strike 3’s interest in pursuing its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy expectations, provided that privacy protections were imposed.

Order

The court granted all 21 motions for permission to serve third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference, including Strike 3’s motion in No. 23-cv-2949 concerning IP address 24.245.33.46.

The order permits Strike 3 to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on each defendant’s internet service provider seeking only the subscriber’s name and address for the relevant alleged-infringement period. The subpoena must give at least 60 days’ notice before production is required and must be limited to one category of documents. The 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 that notice to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or do both. Strike 3 must provide the order with each subpoena, and the provider must provide the order with the required notice. No other discovery was authorized at that time.

Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced in response to a subpoena until the subscriber has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. The court also ordered Strike 3 to file a status report in each case concerning the progress of the authorized discovery without including the defendant’s identity. Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order.