Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-10736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Failla granted limited permission to subpoena Verizon Fios for John Doe’s name and address while protecting his privacy.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, and Verizon Fios. The plaintiff may seek John Doe’s name and address under the subpoena, while John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to challenge it and may proceed anonymously.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe concerns the plaintiff’s request to subpoena John Doe’s Internet service provider, Verizon Fios, before the parties’ required discovery conference. The plaintiff said it needed the subpoena to learn John Doe’s identity and serve him in a lawsuit alleging that copyrighted material was downloaded or distributed.
The court allowed the plaintiff to seek John Doe’s name and address, but not his email address or telephone number. The court also required privacy protections, including notice to John Doe, a 60-day period to challenge the subpoena, and limits on how any disclosed information could be used.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla allowed John Doe to remain anonymous unless the court later orders otherwise and barred the plaintiff from starting settlement discussions or sending a demand letter. The court granted the subpoena motion subject to these restrictions and directed the Clerk to terminate it.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-10736
- Katherine Failla
- Dec. 29, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a complaint against John Doe. The plaintiff asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on John Doe’s Internet service provider, Verizon Fios, before the parties held the conference normally required before discovery begins. The plaintiff sought information that could identify and allow service on John Doe.
The notice attached to the order states that the lawsuit claims John Doe illegally downloaded or distributed copyrighted material. The opinion states that the plaintiff knew the Internet Protocol address associated with the alleged activity but did not know John Doe’s actual name or address.
Subpoena ruling
The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for expedited discovery. It concluded that, without the subpoena, the plaintiff would not be able to identify John Doe or serve him. The court also explained that federal law generally prevented the Internet service provider from disclosing John Doe’s identity without a court-ordered subpoena.
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios to obtain John Doe’s name and address. The court expressly prohibited the plaintiff from subpoenaing John Doe’s email address or telephone number.
Privacy protections and procedures
The court found substantial privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material and the risk that the Internet service provider might identify the wrong person. The plaintiff did not oppose anonymous litigation. The court therefore ordered that John Doe could proceed anonymously unless and until the court ordered otherwise.
The plaintiff stated that it does not seek settlements unless a defendant or the defendant’s lawyer starts the discussion and that it does not send demand letters. The court ordered that the plaintiff may not start settlement discussions or send a demand letter to John Doe. If John Doe starts settlement discussions, the plaintiff may participate and settle the case.
The Internet service provider must, within 60 days after receiving the subpoena, give John Doe a copy of the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice. John Doe then has 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The provider may not disclose identifying information before that period expires. If John Doe or the provider files such a motion, the provider may not disclose information until the court resolves the issues and orders it to resume disclosure. The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending.
The provider must confer with the plaintiff and may not demand payment in advance of producing the requested information. If it charges production costs, it must provide the plaintiff with a billing summary and cost report. Any information disclosed under the subpoena may be used only to protect the plaintiff’s rights described in the complaint.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the motion for permission to serve the subpoena, subject to the stated limits and protections. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Entry 6. This order addressed discovery, anonymity, and related procedures; it did not decide whether John Doe infringed any copyright.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.