Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-08230
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Caproni granted a subpoena request, with privacy protections, to identify the anonymous defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may use the authorized subpoena to seek John Doe’s name and address from the internet service provider. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge the subpoena within the stated deadlines. The internet service provider must give notice, preserve the information, and withhold disclosure while the challenge period or any timely challenge is pending.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for allegedly infringing its copyrights, but identified the defendant only through an Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the defendant’s internet provider before the usual early-case conference.
The court found good cause to allow the subpoena. The subpoena could seek only the defendant’s name and address associated with the specified Internet Protocol address, not a telephone number or email address.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the motion subject to privacy protections. John Doe could remain anonymous, had 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena, and the provider could not release identifying information until that period ended or any challenge was resolved.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-08230
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 15, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe. The complaint identified the defendant only by the alleged Internet Protocol (IP) address 100.37.95.122. Strike 3 alleged that the IP address was used to infringe its copyrights.
Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider before the conference generally required early in a federal case under Rule 26(f). The subpoena sought the name and address associated with the IP address. The opinion identifies the provider as Verizon Fios; the attached notice refers to Verizon Internet Services.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on earlier decisions addressing similar requests and found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court emphasized that the request was limited to the defendant’s true name and address.
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. The court therefore allowed the subpoena only with the protections set out in its order.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion, subject to a protective order. John Doe could proceed anonymously unless the court ordered otherwise. Strike 3 could immediately serve a subpoena seeking only the name and address of the person assigned the specified IP address. Strike 3 could not subpoena a telephone number or email address under this order.
The provider had to give the defendant a copy of the subpoena, the order, and a notice explaining the defendant’s rights within 60 days after service. The defendant then had 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging, quashing, or modifying the subpoena. The provider could not disclose identifying information before that period ended, or while a timely challenge remained unresolved. If no challenge was filed, the provider would have 10 additional days to produce the requested information.
The provider had to preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge was pending. Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit. Strike 3 also could not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although it could participate if the defendant initiated those discussions. The court directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by February 25, 2022, and directed the clerk to close the pending motion at docket entry 6.
The order addressed discovery and privacy procedures; it did not decide whether John Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.