Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-07916
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Moses allowed limited discovery to identify an anonymous copyright defendant while protecting the subscriber’s privacy.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain limited identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios for this lawsuit. John Doe, the subscriber assigned the identified internet address, receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena, while Verizon Fios must follow the order’s notice, preservation, and disclosure restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC accused John Doe, identified by an internet address, of illegally copying and sharing 32 adult movies through BitTorrent. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios for Doe’s name and mailing address.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a basic copyright-infringement claim, that the request was limited, and that Verizon Fios was the only identified source of the requested information. The court also recognized that the subscriber might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement.
Judge Moses granted the request subject to conditions: Strike 3 could seek only Doe’s name and mailing address, had to keep the information confidential, and could use it only for this lawsuit. Verizon Fios had to notify Doe, who could challenge the subpoena before any information was disclosed.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-07916
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 9, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned internet address 108.27.53.168, infringed Strike 3’s copyrights in 32 movies by using the BitTorrent file-sharing system. Strike 3 alleged that the activity occurred between December 15, 2018, and August 3, 2020, and sought damages under the federal copyright statute.
Because Doe’s identity was unknown, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve Verizon Fios, which Strike 3 believed was Doe’s internet-service provider, with an early subpoena. The subpoena sought Doe’s true name and mailing address. Strike 3 supported its request with declarations describing its infringement-detection system and a computer-forensics analysis of a recorded BitTorrent transaction involving the specified internet address.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents discovery before the parties hold their required initial conference, unless a court authorizes earlier discovery. The court applied five factors used in anonymous internet-copyright cases:
- whether Strike 3 had made a basic showing of copyright infringement;
- whether the discovery request was specific;
- whether there was another way to obtain the information;
- whether the information was needed to move the lawsuit forward; and
- Doe’s expectation of privacy.
The court found that all five factors favored Strike 3. It concluded that Strike 3 had made a basic showing that it owned valid copyrights and that Doe had made at least one unauthorized copy. The court found the request narrow because it sought only Doe’s name and address. It also accepted the declaration stating that Verizon Fios was the only entity that could connect the internet address to its subscriber. Without identifying Doe, the court stated, the lawsuit could not proceed. Finally, the court relied on prior decisions holding that internet subscribers have only a minimal expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
The court also recognized a risk of mistaken identification because someone other than the subscriber—such as a family member, guest, neighbor, or customer—might have used the internet connection.
Ruling and conditions
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for early discovery. Strike 3 could serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking only Doe’s name and mailing address. It could not seek Doe’s email address and could not subpoena another internet-service provider without another court order.
Strike 3 could use Doe’s identifying information only for this lawsuit. It could not disclose or threaten to disclose that information, and any filing containing it had to be made under seal. Doe could litigate anonymously unless the court later ordered otherwise after notice and an opportunity to challenge disclosure.
Verizon Fios had to receive a copy of the order with the subpoena, notify Doe within the specified deadlines, and preserve the subpoenaed information if a timely challenge was filed. Doe had 30 days after receiving the subpoena and order to seek to cancel or change the subpoena. Verizon Fios could not provide identifying information before that period ended or while a challenge was pending. The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 7.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.