Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-11461
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Engelmayer allowed Strike 3 to seek the defendant’s identity from an internet provider, with privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unnamed defendant identified as John Doe, and the internet service provider that receives the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant identified by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that the defendant illegally downloaded or distributed a movie. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties held their required early case conference.
The court allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena seeking the defendant’s identity, but not the defendant’s email address or telephone number. The court also allowed the defendant to remain publicly anonymous for now and established procedures for notice, challenges to the subpoena, and protection of the information.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer required the internet provider to notify the defendant and gave the defendant 60 days to challenge the subpoena. The provider could not disclose identifying information during that period or while a timely challenge remained unresolved; Strike 3 also had to provide regular status updates and could use disclosed information only to protect its rights in the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:19-cv-11461
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. A subpoena is a formal demand for information. Strike 3 sought the identity of “John Doe,” who was identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned to Internet Protocol address 184.153.15.9. The notice to the defendant states that Strike 3 alleged the defendant illegally downloaded and/or distributed a movie.
The court noted the risk that an Internet Protocol address could identify the wrong person and recognized the defendant’s substantial privacy interests because of the copyrighted material involved.
Ruling
The court granted Strike 3 leave to file a third-party subpoena on the internet service provider to obtain the defendant’s identity. The subpoena could not seek the defendant’s email address or telephone number. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 6.
Privacy and notice protections
The defendant could proceed anonymously as John Doe unless the court ordered otherwise. Strike 3 could not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint unless the court gave permission. If the defendant initiated settlement discussions, Strike 3 could participate and settle the case.
The internet service provider had 60 days after being served with the subpoena to give the defendant a copy of the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice. The defendant then had 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The provider could not disclose identifying information to Strike 3 before that period expired. If the defendant or provider filed a timely challenge, disclosure had to wait until the court resolved the issues and ordered the provider to resume producing the requested information.
The subpoenaed entity had to preserve the subpoenaed information while a timely challenge was pending. The provider had to confer with Strike 3 and could not charge in advance for producing the information. If it charged production costs, it had to give Strike 3 a billing summary and cost report. Any information disclosed under the subpoena could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights stated in its complaint.
Other case-management requirements
Strike 3’s deadline to serve the summons and complaint was extended to 45 days after Strike 3 received the information from the provider. Until the defendant answered or otherwise responded to the complaint, Strike 3 had to file a status letter of no more than two pages every 60 days describing its efforts to obtain the information and serve the defendant. The court warned that failing to file those letters on time could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The attached notice also explained that the defendant could hire a lawyer or represent themself, could challenge the subpoena, and could ask to remain anonymous without filing a challenge. If the defendant sought court action while representing themself, the defendant had to provide their real name and address to the court for the court’s use; the notice stated that this information would not be given to Strike 3’s lawyers unless the court determined there was no basis to withhold it.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.