Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, who was identified only by the alleged Internet Protocol address 63.119.159.202. Strike 3 alleged that the address was used to infringe its copyrights. The defendant’s Internet service provider was identified as Verizon Fios.

Motion and Reasoning

Strike 3 asked for permission to serve Verizon Fios with a third-party subpoena before the conference usually required early in a federal case. A subpoena is a legal demand for information. Strike 3 sought the name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address so it could identify the defendant.

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for the early subpoena. The court also identified substantial privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material and the possibility that the provider could falsely identify someone who was not responsible. The court therefore granted the motion subject to the protections in its order.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the following:

- John Doe could proceed anonymously unless the court later ordered otherwise. - Strike 3 could not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission. If the defendant began those discussions, Strike 3 could participate and settle the case. - Strike 3 could immediately serve a subpoena on the provider seeking only the defendant’s name and address associated with the specified Internet Protocol address. It could not seek the defendant’s telephone number or email address through that subpoena. - The subpoena had to include the court’s order and a notice to the defendant. Strike 3 could also serve a similar subpoena on another provider identified in response to the first subpoena. - The provider had 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order to notify the defendant. The defendant then had 60 days after receiving them to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to cancel or change it. - The provider could not disclose the defendant’s information until the challenge period ended. If a challenge was filed, the provider had to wait until the court resolved it and directed disclosure to resume. If no challenge was filed, the provider had 10 days after the 60-day period to produce responsive information. - The provider had to preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge was pending. - The provider had to confer with Strike 3 about production costs and could not demand advance payment. If it charged production costs, it had to provide Strike 3 with a billing summary and cost report. - Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint.

The court directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by December 31, 2021, and directed the clerk to close the motion listed as Docket Entry 6. The order addressed discovery and privacy protections; it did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.