Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-00261
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Vyskocil granted permission to subpoena Verizon for the alleged downloader’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the Doe defendant’s name and address from Verizon; Verizon must respond as required by the order and applicable law; and the Doe defendant’s identifying information may be used only to prosecute this action.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Internet Services for the identity and address of a customer linked to an internet address. The company alleged that the customer illegally downloaded its copyrighted works.
The court found good cause to allow this discovery before the parties’ required initial conference. It concluded that Strike 3 had shown a basic copyright-infringement claim, that the request was limited to one person, and that Verizon was the only party able to connect the internet address to that person.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the motion. Strike 3 must give Verizon a copy of the order with the subpoena, may use the information only to pursue this lawsuit, and must comply with an additional federal privacy-law requirement if Verizon qualifies as a cable operator.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-00261
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, who was associated with internet address 173.68.49.212. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant downloaded its copyrighted works illegally. Because the defendant’s identity was unknown, Strike 3 moved for permission to serve Verizon Internet Services with a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A third-party subpoena is a formal demand for information from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standard for expedited discovery described by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court said Strike 3 had to show:
- A concrete, initial showing of an actionable claim;
- A specific discovery request;
- No alternative way to obtain the information;
- A need for the information to advance the lawsuit; and
- Consideration of the privacy expectations of the person whose information was sought.
The court found that Strike 3’s complaint established an initial copyright-infringement claim. It also found that the request was narrowly limited to the name and address of one person, that Verizon was the only entity able to connect the relevant internet address to a real-world person, and that the lawsuit could not proceed without identifying the Doe defendant. The court concluded that the defendant’s privacy interest was outweighed by Strike 3’s need to pursue the alleged copyright violation.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Strike 3’s motion. The order permits Strike 3 to serve Verizon with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of the defendant to whom Verizon assigned the internet address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 must serve Verizon with a copy of the order at the same time as the subpoena. If Verizon qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Strike 3 may use information disclosed through the subpoena only to prosecute its claims in this case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.