Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-02728
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Oetken allowed expedited discovery but required safeguards before Spectrum could disclose John Doe’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information from Spectrum about John Doe, while John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena before disclosure. Spectrum must preserve the information and follow the court’s disclosure restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe distributed its copyrighted movies, which contained pornographic material. It asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, for information identifying Doe.
The court found good cause for immediate discovery because Strike 3 could not identify or serve Doe without it. But the court warned that the subscriber might not be the person who infringed the copyrights and that the sensitive subject matter could create pressure to settle false or unsupported claims.
Judge Oetken allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Doe’s name and addresses, but required Spectrum to notify Doe and wait 60 days before disclosing the information. Doe or Spectrum could challenge the subpoena, and the information could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this case.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02728
- James Oetken
- May 4, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the unidentified defendant, John Doe, distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies in violation of the Copyright Act. The movies contained pornographic material. Strike 3 sought permission to take expedited discovery from Spectrum, a third-party internet service provider, to obtain Doe’s name and address.
The court found good cause for some expedited discovery. Without a subpoena ordered by the court, the court said, Spectrum was effectively prohibited from disclosing Doe’s identity under the federal cable-privacy law. The court also noted that the subscriber connected to an internet protocol address might not be the person who allegedly infringed the copyright. Someone else with access to the connection, such as a child, neighbor, or houseguest, could have been responsible.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Strike 3’s proposed order did not adequately protect Doe. It emphasized the risk that an innocent subscriber could be wrongly identified and forced to defend against the allegations or pressured into an unjust settlement. The court found that the risk was greater because the alleged infringement involved pornographic movies and could expose the defendant to embarrassment if the allegations became public.
Order and Effect
The order allowed Strike 3 to conduct immediate discovery from Spectrum through a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena could seek Doe’s name and current and permanent address, and it had to include a copy of the court’s order.
Strike 3 had to promptly serve the order on Spectrum, and Spectrum had to serve it on Doe using a reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to Doe’s last known address. Doe had 60 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it, or to ask to litigate anonymously. Spectrum could not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that period ended.
If Doe or Spectrum filed a challenge, Spectrum could not disclose information until the court resolved the issue and instructed Spectrum to resume production. If no challenge was filed within 60 days, Spectrum would have 10 days to produce responsive information. Spectrum also had to preserve subpoenaed information while any timely challenge was pending. Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 6.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.