Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-00819
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Wang granted leave to subpoena Spectrum for John Doe’s name and address in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings may subpoena Spectrum for the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address 98.7.201.151. John Doe and the subscriber received notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena, and Spectrum must follow the order’s notice, preservation, and disclosure procedures.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 alleged that an unidentified defendant used BitTorrent to download and distribute its copyrighted films without authorization. Because Strike 3 knew only the internet protocol address associated with the activity, it asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, for the subscriber’s name and address.
The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement and that its request was specific, necessary, and not available through another source. The court also found that the subscriber had only a limited expectation of privacy in distributing copyrighted material.
Judge Wang granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve the subpoena. The order required Spectrum to notify the subscriber, allowed the subscriber 45 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously, and barred disclosure until any challenge was resolved or the challenge period expired.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-00819
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 7, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, identified in the complaint by internet protocol address 98.7.201.151, used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to download and distribute at least one of Strike 3’s copyrighted films without authorization. Strike 3 stated that its infringement-detection system connected with that address while it was using BitTorrent and obtained pieces of Strike 3’s works from the address.
Because Strike 3 did not know John Doe’s name or address, it moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties’ usual discovery conference. The proposed subpoena sought the true name and address of the Spectrum subscriber associated with the internet protocol address.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standard requiring reasonableness and good cause for early discovery. It considered 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 needed, and the subscriber’s expectation of privacy.
The court concluded that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of infringement by identifying copyright-registration information and alleging that John Doe copied and distributed elements of its copyrighted works. It found the request sufficiently specific because it sought only the name and address of the subscriber linked to the identified internet protocol address.
The court also accepted Strike 3’s assertion that Spectrum was the only practical source of the identifying information. Finally, it found that internet-service-provider subscribers have a limited expectation of privacy in transmitting or distributing copyrighted material. The court stated that procedural protections could address concerns about identifying the wrong person and causing undue embarrassment.
Ruling and safeguards
Judge Ona T. Wang granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena. Strike 3 could immediately serve Spectrum with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena and was required to include a copy of the order.
Spectrum had 30 days after service to give the subscriber a copy of the subpoena and the order. The subscriber then had 45 days after receiving the subpoena to file a motion challenging it, including a request to litigate anonymously. Spectrum could not disclose identifying information before that period ended. If the subscriber or Spectrum filed a challenge, disclosure was barred until the court resolved the challenge and ordered disclosure. If no challenge was filed within 45 days, Spectrum would have 10 days to produce the subpoenaed information. Spectrum also had to preserve the information while any challenge was pending.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.