Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe directly infringed its copyrights by using BitTorrent to download and distribute its copyrighted films. Strike 3 said its detection system identified Internet Protocol address 108.14.233.3 as involved in the alleged activity. A location service traced that address to the general area of New York City, within the Southern District of New York.

Strike 3 filed the case without knowing Doe’s name or specific address. The court previously allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider associated with the Internet Protocol address, to obtain the subscriber’s name and address. The court also allowed Doe to proceed anonymously, barred Strike 3 from starting settlement negotiations before properly serving the complaint, and limited the information it could obtain from the provider to Doe’s name and address.

Motion to Quash

John Doe moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) to quash, or cancel, the third-party subpoena. He argued that he did not personally download Strike 3’s videos because other people had access to his internet connection. He also argued that Strike 3 was a “copyright troll” using the legal system to pressure people by threatening to expose alleged downloads of pornography.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the merits of the copyright claim were not at issue on a motion to quash. A subpoena may seek information relevant to a claim or defense, including information that could reasonably lead to other relevant evidence. Whether Doe was ultimately responsible for the alleged infringement, and whether another person used the connection, could be addressed later in the case.

The court found the subpoena relevant for two reasons. First, Doe’s name and address would allow Strike 3 to serve him with the complaint and summons, enabling him to respond to the lawsuit. Second, the information would allow Strike 3 to investigate whether someone other than Doe had used the Internet Protocol address. The possibility that the subscriber was not the actual infringer therefore did not justify quashing the subpoena.

The court acknowledged that other courts had criticized similar copyright holders for abusive litigation practices but found nothing improper in Strike 3’s conduct in this case. It balanced Doe’s privacy interests against Strike 3’s interest in protecting its copyrighted material and concluded that the protective order fairly addressed those concerns.

Disposition

The court denied John Doe’s motion to quash. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 9 and stated that a copy of the decision would be mailed to Doe. The ruling addressed discovery needed to identify the defendant; it did not decide whether Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.