Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant identified by internet protocol address 68.129.101.177. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant used BitTorrent to distribute several of Strike 3’s copyrighted motion pictures without permission. The opinion text identifies Verizon Fios as the internet service provider that allegedly had information linking the internet address to a subscriber.

Motion for Early Discovery

Under the usual discovery schedule, parties generally confer before beginning discovery. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before that conference. The requested subpoena sought only the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 said it needed that information to identify the defendant, investigate the alleged infringement, and serve the lawsuit. It also said Verizon Fios retained the relevant records for only a limited period.

The memorandum argued that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery because its complaint made a preliminary claim of copyright infringement, the request was specific, no other method could identify the subscriber, the information was necessary to serve the defendant, and the defendant’s privacy interest was outweighed by Strike 3’s interest in enforcing its copyrights. The memorandum also discussed possible privacy safeguards for the defendant, including allowing the defendant to proceed under a pseudonym.

Ruling

The court granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order therefore authorized the requested early discovery; it did not decide whether the anonymous defendant ultimately infringed Strike 3’s copyrights. Judge Kenneth Karas entered the order on August 31, 2020.

Effect of the Order

The ruling permitted Strike 3 to seek the subscriber’s name and address from Verizon Fios so that the lawsuit could proceed against an identified defendant. The provided text does not state whether Verizon Fios produced the information, whether the defendant was later identified, or how the underlying copyright claims were resolved.