Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-06601
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Abrams granted discovery allowing identification of the anonymous defendant through Verizon Fios.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain the anonymous defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios under specified conditions. The defendant may challenge the subpoena or seek to remain anonymous, and Verizon Fios must follow the notice, preservation, timing, and disclosure requirements in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an anonymous defendant for allegedly downloading and distributing its adult motion pictures through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Because the defendant was identified only by an Internet Protocol address, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s name and address before the parties’ initial conference.
Judge Abrams found that all five factors favored early discovery: Strike 3 had shown a basic copyright-infringement claim, requested only limited identifying information, lacked another way to obtain it, needed the information to serve the defendant, and the defendant had a limited privacy expectation in sharing copyrighted material. The court also recognized the risk of embarrassment and required protections.
Judge Abrams granted Strike 3’s motion and authorized an immediate subpoena for the defendant’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers. Verizon Fios had to notify the defendant, who could challenge the subpoena or seek to remain anonymous; the order also limited use of disclosed information and adjourned the initial conference.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-06601
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement action against “John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 74.101.135.6.” The complaint alleged that the defendant downloaded and distributed Strike 3’s adult motion pictures through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. The defendant’s name was unknown, and Strike 3 identified the defendant only through the listed Internet Protocol address.
Strike 3 filed a one-sided motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to seek discovery before the parties’ required initial conference. It asked to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider identified in its motion, to obtain the defendant’s name and address.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied a flexible “reasonableness and good cause” standard and considered five factors used for early discovery:
- Basic showing of infringement. The court found that Strike 3 had made a basic showing of copyright infringement by alleging ownership of valid copyrights and unauthorized copying. The complaint identified the works, publication dates, copyright registration numbers, and registration dates. It also described Strike 3’s proprietary “VXN Scan” system and its allegations that the defendant used BitTorrent to download and distribute the works.
- Specificity of the request. The requested discovery was sufficiently narrow because it sought only the defendant’s name and address.
- No alternative way to obtain the information. The court accepted Strike 3’s contention that Verizon Fios was the only entity able to connect the IP address to the subscriber and identify the defendant.
- Need for the information. The information was necessary for Strike 3 to serve the defendant and continue the lawsuit.
- Privacy. The court acknowledged that being identified in a case involving the distribution and viewing of adult movies could cause embarrassment. It nevertheless concluded that internet-service-provider subscribers have a limited expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 could immediately serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 was expressly barred from subpoenaing email addresses or telephone numbers.
The court required Verizon Fios, within 60 days after being served, to give the defendant the subpoena, the order, and a notice explaining the defendant’s options. If the defendant or Verizon Fios did not challenge the subpoena during that period, Verizon Fios would have 10 days to produce the responsive information. The defendant could move to quash or modify the subpoena, meaning ask the court to cancel or change it, or could seek to proceed anonymously. A timely challenge would prevent release of the contact information until the court ruled.
The order also required preservation of the subpoenaed information while a timely challenge was pending, addressed potential production costs, limited use of any disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit, and required Strike 3 to provide the order with any subpoena. The initial conference was adjourned indefinitely, and the clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion. This order authorized discovery; it did not decide whether the defendant infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.