Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-00782
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Broderick granted early subpoena discovery to identify an alleged copyright infringer, subject to privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information from the Internet service provider associated with Internet Protocol address 72.80.157.152. The affected Internet subscriber receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena, including anonymously, before any information is disclosed.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that Doe used BitTorrent to download and distribute its films without permission. The company asked to subpoena the Internet service provider before the parties held their required early case meeting.
The court found that Strike 3 had stated a sufficient initial copyright-infringement claim and appeared to have no other way to learn the defendant’s identity. The court also recognized that the subscriber connected to an Internet Protocol address might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement, creating a risk of mistaken identification and pressured settlements.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Strike 3’s motion. The provider must notify the subscriber, who has 45 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously; the provider may not disclose identifying information while a challenge is pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-00782
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a direct copyright-infringement claim against John Doe. The complaint identified Doe only through Internet Protocol address 72.80.157.152. Strike 3 alleged that Doe used the BitTorrent file-sharing network to download and distribute Strike 3’s films without authorization.
Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s Internet service provider before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The purpose of the subpoena was to obtain the name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that discovery generally cannot begin before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the court authorizes it. Applying a standard requiring reasonableness and good cause, the court found that Strike 3 had stated an initial copyright-infringement claim sufficient for this motion and appeared to have no other way to identify the alleged infringer. The court also stated that the case could not proceed unless the defendant was identified.
The court recognized a risk that the subscriber listed in the provider’s billing records might not be the person responsible for the alleged conduct. A single Internet Protocol address may be used by multiple people, including neighbors, passers-by, or members of the public using an unsecured or public network. The court therefore imposed procedures designed to let the subscriber challenge the subpoena before any identifying information was disclosed.
Ruling and procedures
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena, subject to the stated procedures. Strike 3 may immediately serve the subpoena on the provider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and must attach the order.
The provider must serve the affected subscriber with the subpoena and the order within 15 days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber then has 45 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to litigate anonymously. The provider may not disclose subpoenaed information during that period.
If the subscriber does not file a challenge within 45 days, the provider must produce the information needed to comply with the subpoena within 10 additional days. The provider may also challenge the subpoena, but its filings must not reveal the subscriber’s identifying information to Strike 3. If any challenge is filed, the provider must preserve the information and may not disclose it until the court resolves the challenge and orders disclosure. The order authorized early discovery; it did not decide whether Doe committed copyright infringement.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.