Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-07918
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Abrams granted expedited discovery, allowing a subpoena to identify the alleged copyright defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios. John Doe may challenge or seek anonymity regarding the subpoena, and Verizon Fios must provide notice and follow the court’s procedures before releasing information.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 alleged that an unidentified person using a specified internet address downloaded and distributed its copyrighted adult motion pictures. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios, the internet provider, for the person’s name and address.
The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement and that its request was specific. The court also found that Verizon Fios was the only identified source of the requested information, that the information was needed to continue the case, and that the subscriber had only a limited expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the motion and allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena for the subscriber’s true name and current and permanent address. The order barred requests for email addresses and telephone numbers and set procedures for notice, objections, preservation of information, and limited use of any information disclosed.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-07918
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 173.52.54.180. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant downloaded and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted adult motion pictures through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Strike 3 said it could identify the defendant only by the Internet Protocol address.
Strike 3 asked for permission to seek discovery before the parties’ required conference. Specifically, it sought to serve Verizon Fios, the defendant’s internet service provider, with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to obtain the defendant’s name and address.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery generally cannot begin before the parties’ required conference unless the court allows it. Courts apply a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard to requests for early discovery. The court considered five factors:
- Initial showing of infringement. The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement. It alleged ownership of the copyrighted works and unauthorized copying, and described its use of the VXN Scan system to detect the alleged downloading and distribution.
- Specificity of the request. The court found the request narrow because Strike 3 sought only the defendant’s name and address.
- Availability of other sources. The court accepted Strike 3’s position that the internet provider was the only entity that could connect the specified Internet Protocol address to the subscriber’s identity and contact information.
- Need for the information. The court found that Strike 3 could not serve the defendant or pursue the action without the information from Verizon Fios.
- Privacy interests. The court recognized that viewing the particular copyrighted works could cause public embarrassment but concluded that internet subscribers have a minimal expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It authorized Strike 3 to immediately serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The court expressly prohibited Strike 3 from subpoenaing email addresses or telephone numbers.
The court also ordered protective procedures because of the risk of false identifications and resulting annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden. Verizon Fios was given 60 days after service of the subpoena to provide John Doe with the subpoena, the order, and a notice explaining the case and the defendant’s options. If that 60-day period passed without John Doe or Verizon Fios challenging the subpoena, Verizon Fios would have 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3.
The order allowed John Doe to move to quash or modify the subpoena or to seek anonymity. If such a motion were filed, Verizon Fios could not release the contact information until the court ruled. Verizon Fios also had to preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge was pending, confer with Strike 3, and not charge in advance for producing the information. Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.