Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11466
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe: Judge Nathan granted Strike 3 permission to subpoena Spectrum for information identifying the unnamed defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum. John Doe may challenge or seek limits on the subpoena and may request anonymous treatment. Spectrum must provide notice, preserve the information, and follow the order’s disclosure restrictions.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 alleged that the internet address assigned to John Doe was used to download and share its copyrighted films through BitTorrent. Because Strike 3 could identify Doe only through the internet service provider’s records, it asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties’ usual early conference.
The court found good cause for early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had presented an initial showing of copyright infringement, requested only information needed to identify and serve Doe, had no practical alternative way to obtain that information, needed it to continue the case, and faced only a limited privacy interest in the sharing of copyrighted material.
Judge Nathan granted the motion and authorized Strike 3 to immediately serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not an email address or telephone number. The order also gave Doe and Spectrum 60 days to challenge the subpoena, required Spectrum to preserve the information, and limited any disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:19-cv-11466
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, identified in the complaint only by the Internet Protocol (IP) address 74.71.28.144, had downloaded and shared a number of Strike 3’s copyrighted works through BitTorrent. Strike 3 stated that its forensic software tracked the IP address, but that only the internet service provider could match the address and the relevant dates and times to a subscriber’s identity.
Strike 3 therefore moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to conduct discovery before the parties’ required early case-management conference. It sought to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Spectrum for information identifying John Doe.
Court’s analysis
The court applied a flexible good-cause standard for early discovery and considered five factors: whether Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement; whether the request was specific; whether other ways existed to obtain the information; whether the information was necessary to advance the case; and John Doe’s privacy expectations.
The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement by identifying the copyrighted works and alleging unauthorized copying, including the technology, IP address, dates, and times involved. It found the requested identifying information sufficiently limited, concluded that Strike 3 had no other apparent way to identify Doe, and determined that the information was necessary to identify and serve the defendant. The court also found that Doe had a limited privacy expectation in sharing copyrighted material, while recognizing the possibility of embarrassment and mistaken identification.
Because of the risk of false-positive identifications and resulting annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden, the court also found good cause for a protective order governing the subpoena.
Order
Judge Allison J. Nathan granted Strike 3 permission to immediately serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 was expressly barred from subpoenaing Doe’s email address or telephone number.
Spectrum was required to notify John Doe within 60 days after being served. John Doe then had 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to proceed anonymously. Spectrum could not disclose identifying information before that period ended, and could not disclose it while a timely challenge was pending unless the court directed otherwise. If no challenge was filed, Spectrum had 10 days after the 60-day period to provide the responsive information.
The order also required preservation of subpoenaed information, addressed possible production costs, required Strike 3 to serve the opinion and order with the subpoena, and limited any information disclosed to use in protecting Strike 3’s rights asserted in the complaint.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.