Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-01840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Abrams granted expedited discovery, allowing a subpoena to Verizon Fios for the unnamed defendant’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios; John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to challenge or limit the subpoena; Verizon Fios must follow the order’s notice, preservation, and production procedures.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that Doe downloaded and distributed its copyrighted adult motion pictures. Strike 3 asked for permission to subpoena Verizon Fios, the internet service provider, to learn Doe’s identity and address.
The court found that all five factors favored early discovery: Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, requested only Doe’s name and address, had no other identified way to obtain that information, needed it to serve Doe and continue the case, and faced only a limited privacy interest in the sharing of copyrighted material.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Strike 3’s motion. The order allowed a subpoena for Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers, and established notice, confidentiality, preservation, and challenges-to-the-subpoena procedures.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-01840
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe. The complaint identified Doe only through the Internet Protocol address 108.30.70.208. Strike 3 alleged that Doe downloaded and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted motion pictures using the BitTorrent file-sharing network.
Before the parties’ required initial conference, Strike 3 filed an ex parte motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). The motion sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider identified in the motion, to obtain Doe’s name and address.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard for expedited discovery—discovery allowed before the parties’ initial conference. It considered five factors.
First, the court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement. The complaint described the copyrighted works, including publication dates and copyright-registration information, and alleged that Strike 3’s proprietary detection system identified Doe’s downloading and distribution activity.
Second, the court found the request sufficiently specific because Strike 3 limited the subpoena to Doe’s name and address. Third, the court accepted Strike 3’s argument that Verizon Fios was the only entity able to connect the identified Internet Protocol address with a subscriber and provide identifying information.
Fourth, the court found that the requested information was necessary for Strike 3 to serve Doe and pursue the lawsuit. Fifth, although being identified in a lawsuit involving the distribution and viewing of adult movies could cause embarrassment, the court concluded that internet-service-provider subscribers have a limited expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It authorized Strike 3 to immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Verizon Fios for Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The order expressly prohibited subpoenas seeking Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers.
The order required Verizon Fios to notify Doe within 60 days after being served. If neither Doe nor Verizon Fios challenged the subpoena during that period, Verizon Fios would have 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3. Doe could move to quash or modify the subpoena or seek to proceed anonymously; if such a motion were filed, Verizon Fios was not to release the contact information until the court ruled.
The order also required preservation of subpoenaed information while a timely challenge was pending, limited any disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit, adjourned the initial conference without setting a new date, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The order addressed discovery and case-management procedures; it did not decide whether Doe committed copyright infringement.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.