Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright lawsuit against John Doe. The opinion states that the lawsuit concerned alleged downloading or distribution of copyrighted material. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Doe’s Internet Service Provider, Verizon Fios, before the parties held the required early-case conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).

Strike 3 said it could not identify or serve Doe without the discovery. The court also explained that federal law generally prevented the Internet Service Provider from disclosing Doe’s identity without a court-ordered subpoena. The court found that Strike 3 had met the requirements for expedited discovery.

Rulings

The court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios to obtain Doe’s name and address. The court did not permit Strike 3 to subpoena Doe’s email address or telephone number.

The court identified substantial privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material and the possibility that the Internet Service Provider could identify the wrong person. Because Strike 3 did not oppose anonymity, the court ordered that Doe could proceed anonymously as John Doe unless the court later ordered otherwise.

The court also ordered Strike 3 not to initiate settlement discussions or send a demand letter to Doe. If Doe initiated settlement discussions, Strike 3 could participate and settle the case.

Notice and challenge procedures

Verizon Fios was given 60 days after being served with the subpoena to provide Doe with the subpoena, the court’s order, and the attached notice. 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. Verizon Fios could not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that period expired. If Doe or Verizon Fios timely filed such a motion, disclosure had to wait until the court addressed the issues and ordered Verizon Fios to resume producing the requested information.

The subpoenaed entity had to preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely challenge was pending. An Internet Service Provider could not charge Strike 3 in advance for producing information, although it could later provide a billing summary and cost report if it chose to charge production costs. Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for leave to serve the third-party subpoena, subject to the stated limits and protections, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 6. The order addressed discovery, anonymity, and subpoena procedures; it did not decide whether Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyright.