Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-07020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Caproni allowed an identity subpoena before discovery, with privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, and the internet service provider receiving the subpoena are directly affected. The order protects Doe’s anonymity and gives Doe and the provider procedures for challenging or delaying disclosure of identifying information.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 claimed that an unidentified internet subscriber infringed its copyrights. The company asked to subpoena the subscriber’s internet provider before the parties’ required initial discovery conference.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena but recognized risks to the subscriber’s privacy and possible mistaken identification. It allowed the subscriber to remain anonymous and limited the subpoena to the subscriber’s name and address, excluding a telephone number and email address.
Judge Caproni granted the motion subject to protective conditions. The provider must notify the subscriber, who has 60 days to challenge the subpoena; the provider generally may not disclose information until that period ends or any challenge is resolved. The plaintiff also may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-07020
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 27, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement. The complaint identified Doe only by the alleged Internet Protocol (IP) address 63.119.159.202. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Doe’s internet service provider before the parties held the discovery conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Strike 3 sought only the name and address associated with the IP address. The court relied on earlier opinions addressing similar requests and found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery. The court also identified substantial privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material and the possibility that the provider could identify the wrong person.
Ruling
The court granted Strike 3’s motion subject to a protective order. Doe may proceed anonymously as “John Doe” unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only the name and address of the person assigned the specified IP address. It may not subpoena a telephone number or email address. The order also permits a similar subpoena to another provider if one is identified as providing internet services to Doe.
The provider must serve Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the court’s notice within 60 days after receiving them. Doe then has 60 days after receiving notice to move to quash or modify the subpoena, meaning to ask the court to cancel or change it. The provider may not disclose Doe’s information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the requested information. The provider must preserve the information, confer with Strike 3 about production costs, and may not charge in advance.
The order limits any disclosed information to use in protecting Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit. It also bars Strike 3 from initiating settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although Strike 3 may participate if Doe initiates such discussions. The court directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by December 31, 2021, and directed the clerk to close the motion at docket entry 6. The order addressed early discovery and privacy protections; it did not decide whether Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.