Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.10.65.161
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-03855
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe (IP address 71.10.65.161), Judge Foster granted early discovery so Strike 3 could seek the subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the twelve unnamed John Doe subscribers, and the internet service providers that may receive the subpoenas. The order permits Strike 3 to seek subscriber names and addresses while giving the subscribers notice and an opportunity to object or seek anonymity.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued twelve unidentified John Doe defendants, including the subscriber associated with IP address 71.10.65.161, alleging that they downloaded and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies. Strike 3 asked to identify the subscribers through their internet providers before the parties held their required initial discovery meeting.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a potentially valid copyright-infringement claim, requested only the subscribers’ names and addresses, had no practical alternative way to obtain that information, and needed the information to continue the cases. The court also recognized that the subscribers might not be the actual infringers and that the subject matter could be embarrassing.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted all twelve motions. Strike 3 may serve limited subpoenas seeking each subscriber’s name and address, but the internet providers must give notice, the subscribers may object or seek protection, and Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the information until the court addresses any request to proceed anonymously.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.10.65.161 · No. 0:23-cv-03855
- Patrick Schiltz
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
This was an omnibus order addressing substantively similar motions in twelve copyright cases filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. In each case, Strike 3 sued a John Doe defendant identified only by an internet-protocol address. Strike 3 alleged that the 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 relevant IP addresses but could not identify the individuals using them. It alleged that each defendant’s internet service provider could match the IP address to the subscriber’s name and address. Strike 3 therefore sought permission to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on each provider before the parties held the conference generally required by Rule 26(f). The requested discovery was intended to identify the defendants, investigate their alleged involvement, and permit service of the lawsuits.
Court’s reasoning
Rule 26(d)(1) generally prevents parties from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the rules, the parties, or the court authorize it. The court explained that early discovery may be appropriate when a defendant’s identity is unknown. Applying the good-cause standard and the five factors commonly used in these cases, the court concluded that early discovery was warranted because:
- Strike 3 sufficiently alleged an actionable copyright-infringement claim, including ownership of valid copyrights, copying and distribution of copyrighted works, and lack of authorization.
- The requested discovery was specific because it sought only each defendant’s name and address.
- Strike 3 had no alternative way to obtain the identifying information.
- The cases could not proceed without identifying the defendants.
- With privacy protections, Strike 3’s interest in pursuing its claims outweighed each subscriber’s expectation of privacy.
The court recognized that a subscriber may not be the person who committed the alleged infringement. It also recognized the risk that an innocent subscriber could be connected to litigation involving sensitive and potentially embarrassing subject matter. The court therefore authorized discovery subject to a limited protective order.
Order
The court granted each of Strike 3’s twelve motions for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. 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 the IP address during the periods of the alleged infringement. - The subpoena must provide at least 60 days’ notice before production is required and must be limited to one category of documents identifying the subscriber. - 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. - Strike 3 must serve the court’s 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 in response to the subpoena until the subscriber has an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. - If a subscriber does not request permission to proceed anonymously within 45 days after the information is disclosed to Strike 3’s lawyers, the limited protective order will expire. - Strike 3 must file a status report in each of the twelve cases by June 11, 2024, without including information identifying any defendant.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.