Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.72.164.4
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-02658
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Foster granted early subpoenas to identify alleged copyright infringers from their internet-service providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena the internet-service provider for the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.72.164.4, and the order similarly affects the unnamed subscribers and providers in twenty other related cases. The subscribers receive notice and an opportunity to object or seek permission to proceed anonymously.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued twenty-one John Doe defendants, including the subscriber assigned IP address 75.72.164.4, alleging that each used BitTorrent to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without permission.
Strike 3 asked to subpoena each defendant’s internet-service provider before the parties held their usual initial discovery meeting. It sought only the subscriber’s name and address because it could identify the alleged activity only through an IP address.
The court granted all twenty-one motions and imposed privacy protections, including notice to each subscriber and an opportunity to object or ask to remain anonymous. Judge Dulce J. Foster did not decide whether any defendant actually infringed copyright.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.72.164.4 · No. 0:23-cv-02658
- Patrick Schiltz
- Dec. 6, 2023
Background
This omnibus order addressed substantively similar motions filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC in twenty-one District of Minnesota cases. In the case identified above, Strike 3 sued a John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.72.164.4. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution protocol to download and distribute one or more of Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without authorization.
Strike 3 said that its infringement-detection system identified the alleged distribution through the defendant’s IP address. Strike 3 could not identify the defendant by name, but alleged that the internet-service provider could connect the IP address to the subscriber’s name and address. In the case involving IP address 75.72.164.4, the opinion identifies Spectrum as the internet-service provider.
Motion and legal standard
Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested early discovery was limited to information identifying the subscriber.
The court applied a good-cause standard, asking whether the need for early discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighed prejudice to the responding party. It also applied five factors: whether Strike 3 made a concrete initial showing of an actionable claim; whether the request was specific; whether other ways existed to obtain the information; whether the information was needed for the case to proceed; and the subscriber’s expectation of privacy.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that expedited discovery was warranted in all twenty-one cases. It concluded that Strike 3 had sufficiently alleged a copyright-infringement claim, that the request was specific because it sought only each subscriber’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 also concluded that Strike 3’s interest in pursuing its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy interests, provided that privacy protections were imposed.
The court recognized that an internet subscriber might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement and that the cases involved sensitive and potentially embarrassing subject matter. The court therefore authorized only limited discovery and issued a protective order.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion in the case involving IP address 75.72.164.4, as well as its motions in the other twenty cases. Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the internet-service provider seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the identified IP address during the periods of alleged infringement.
The subpoena must provide at least sixty 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 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 do both. No other discovery was authorized at that time.
Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced in response to the subpoena until the defendant has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. If the defendant does not file such a request within forty-five calendar days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel, the limited protective order will expire. Strike 3 was also ordered to file a status report in each case, without including information about the defendant’s identity. The order states that the status report was due February 5, 2023, a date that predates the order.
Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order. The order authorized discovery to identify the defendant; it did not resolve whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred or whether any defendant was liable.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.