Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-07014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Caproni granted a limited subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant, subject to privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain limited identifying information from the defendant’s Internet service provider, while John Doe receives notice, time to challenge the subpoena, and permission to remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement, identifying the defendant only through an Internet Protocol address. The company asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required early case conference to learn the subscriber’s name and address.
The court found good cause for early discovery because the information sought was limited and needed to pursue the case. But it also recognized privacy concerns and the possibility that the Internet service provider could identify the wrong person.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the request subject to protections. The subpoena could seek only the defendant’s name and address, and the defendant would have 60 days after notice to challenge it; the defendant could also remain anonymous unless the court later ordered otherwise.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-07014
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 26, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe, who was identified only by the alleged Internet Protocol address 108.14.233.3. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s Internet service provider, Verizon Fios, before the required conference under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena sought the name and address associated with that Internet Protocol address.
Decision
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery. It concluded that the requested name and address were a limited set of specific facts needed to pursue the case. 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. The court therefore granted the motion subject to a protective order.
Protective conditions
The order allows the defendant to proceed anonymously as “John Doe” unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 may immediately serve a subpoena under Rule 45 on Verizon Fios, and on another identified Internet service provider if necessary, but may seek only the defendant’s name and address—not a telephone number or email address. The subpoena must include the order and the notice to the defendant.
The Internet service provider must notify the defendant and provide copies of the subpoena, order, and notice. The defendant has 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging or limiting the subpoena, including a motion to block disclosure or to continue proceeding anonymously. The provider may not disclose the information before that period ends or, if a timely challenge is filed, before the court resolves it. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the requested information.
The provider must preserve the subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. It also may not charge a production fee in advance and must provide Strike 3 with a billing summary and cost report if it charges for production. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit. Strike 3 was also directed to file a status letter by December 31, 2021, and the clerk was directed to close the motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.