Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.118.104.51
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-02203
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Magistrate Judge Foster granted early subpoenas to identify subscribers allegedly involved in copyright infringement.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC received permission to seek limited identifying information from the internet service providers connected to the twenty-one John Doe defendants. The unidentified subscribers received notice and opportunities to object, seek protection, or ask to proceed anonymously. The internet service providers must follow the order’s notice, certification, and production limits.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued twenty-one unidentified John Doe defendants, alleging that each used an Internet file-sharing system to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies. Strike 3 knew the defendants only by their internet protocol addresses and said their internet providers could identify them.
Strike 3 asked to subpoena each defendant’s internet provider before the usual early case-management conference. The court granted all twenty-one motions, allowing subpoenas limited to the subscriber’s name and address, with notice and opportunities to object or seek court protection. The order did not authorize other discovery and required safeguards before any identity could be publicly disclosed.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster found good cause for the expedited discovery because Strike 3 had stated a copyright claim, requested specific information, lacked another way to obtain it, and could not proceed without identifying the defendants. The court also recognized that the subscriber might not be the actual infringer and imposed privacy protections.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.118.104.51 · No. 0:23-cv-02203
- Patrick Schiltz
- Dec. 6, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed twenty-one similar copyright-infringement cases in the District of Minnesota against defendants identified only as John Doe subscribers assigned particular internet protocol addresses. The order addresses all twenty-one cases together. Strike 3 alleged that each 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 its proprietary infringement-detection system, called VXN, identified the internet protocol addresses involved in the alleged distribution. Strike 3 could not identify the defendants by name, but alleged that each defendant’s internet service provider could match the relevant address to a subscriber’s name and address.
Motions and legal standard
Strike 3 filed a one-sided motion in each case for permission to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested discovery was intended to identify the defendants, investigate their alleged roles, and allow service of the lawsuits.
The court applied the “good cause” standard commonly used in the district for expedited discovery. Under that standard, the need to speed up discovery must outweigh prejudice to the responding party. The court considered five factors: whether Strike 3 showed a concrete initial copyright claim, whether the request was specific, whether another way existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed to advance the claims, and the subscriber’s privacy expectations.
Court’s analysis
The court found expedited discovery warranted in all twenty-one cases. It concluded that Strike 3 had adequately alleged actionable copyright infringement by alleging ownership of valid copyrights, unauthorized copying and distribution, and copying of original elements of the works. The court also found that the request was specific because it sought only each subscriber’s name and address; that there were no alternative means to obtain the information; and that the cases could not proceed without identifying the defendants.
The court recognized that the subscriber associated with an internet protocol address might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement. It also recognized that the allegations involved sensitive and potentially embarrassing subject matter. The court therefore concluded that Strike 3’s interest in pursuing its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy expectations only with protective measures in place.
Order
The court granted each of Strike 3’s twenty-one motions. For each case, 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 internet protocol address during the periods identified in the complaint.
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 internet service provider may seek a protective order if it has a legitimate basis to do so.
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. Strike 3 must serve the order with the subpoena, and the provider must give the subscriber a copy of the order with the required notice. No other discovery was authorized at that time.
Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced under the subpoenas until the subscriber has had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court has ruled on that request. If the subscriber 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 expires. The order also required Strike 3 to file a status report in each case describing the discovery’s progress without identifying any defendant.
Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the omnibus order as a United States magistrate judge.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.