Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-08824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Caproni granted a subpoena request, with safeguards protecting the defendant’s identity and privacy.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios under the subpoena, while John Doe receives anonymity and an opportunity to challenge disclosure. The Internet service provider must follow the notice, preservation, and disclosure procedures in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement and sought permission to subpoena Verizon Fios for the name and address linked to an Internet Protocol address.
The court found good cause to allow the subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference because the requested information was limited and needed to pursue the case. It also recognized privacy concerns and the possibility of mistakenly identifying an uninvolved person.
Judge Caproni granted the motion subject to protections: Doe may remain anonymous, may challenge the subpoena within 60 days after notice, and the Internet service provider may not release information before that period ends or while a challenge is pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-08824
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, who was identified in the complaint only by the alleged Internet Protocol (IP) address 74.101.158.102. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena—a formal demand for information—on Doe’s Internet service provider, Verizon Fios, before the parties held the conference normally required by Rule 26(f).
The requested subpoena sought only the name and address associated with the IP address. The court relied on earlier opinions addressing similar requests and found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court also identified substantial privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material and the risk that the Internet service provider could make a false identification.
Ruling and Protective Conditions
The court granted Strike 3’s motion subject to a protective order. John Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 may immediately serve the subpoena, but it may seek only Doe’s name and address—not a telephone number or email address. The subpoena must include the order and the attached notice to the defendant. Strike 3 may also serve a similar subpoena on another Internet service provider identified through the first subpoena.
The Internet service provider must notify Doe within 60 days after receiving the subpoena and the order. Doe then has 60 days after receiving notice to move to quash or modify the subpoena, or to ask to proceed anonymously. The provider may not disclose information during that period or while a timely challenge is pending, and it must preserve the subpoenaed information. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information.
Strike 3 may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although it may participate if Doe initiates discussions. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint. The court directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by March 30, 2021, and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket 6. Judge Valerie Caproni did not decide whether Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.