Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-02733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gorenstein allowed limited subpoena discovery to identify the anonymous defendant while preserving time to challenge it.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe's name and address from Spectrum under strict limits. The subscriber associated with the identified Internet Protocol address receives notice and has 60 days to challenge or modify the subpoena. Spectrum must notify the subscriber, preserve the information, and withhold the identifying information unless the court authorizes disclosure.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that a movie was illegally downloaded or distributed. Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties' required initial conference to learn the subscriber's name and address.
The court allowed the subpoena only to seek John Doe's name and address. Spectrum must first notify the subscriber and provide copies of the subpoena, complaint, and court order. The subscriber then has 60 days to ask the court to cancel or modify the subpoena, and Spectrum must preserve the information during that period.
The court granted Strike 3's motion to the extent stated, imposed confidentiality and filing restrictions, and kept the case under the name John Doe unless it later orders otherwise. Judge Gorenstein issued the order; it did not decide whether the alleged downloading or distribution occurred.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02733
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 9, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, a subscriber associated with Internet Protocol address 142.105.25.22. The notice attached to the order states that the complaint alleges the subscriber illegally downloaded and/or distributed a movie. Strike 3 did not know the defendant's name or address and sought permission to issue a subpoena to Spectrum before the parties' required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
The opinion states that Strike 3 submitted a motion for permission to serve the subpoena and a supplemental declaration responding to an earlier court order. The court relied for substantially the same reasons on several earlier decisions involving Strike 3, without deciding the truth of the complaint's allegations.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to the extent stated in the order. Within 14 days, Strike 3 could serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45, which governs subpoenas to obtain information from a third party. The subpoena could seek only John Doe's name and address—not a telephone number, email address, or other information—and had to include the complaint, the order, and the attached notice to the subscriber.
Within 60 days after receiving the subpoena, Spectrum had to deliver the materials to the subscriber or subscribers it determined were associated with the identified Internet Protocol address. Spectrum had to report to Strike 3 when and how it delivered the materials and any information it had about receipt, but it could not disclose the subscriber's name or address to Strike 3 unless the court later authorized disclosure.
After delivery, the defendant had 60 days to ask the court to cancel or modify the subpoena. Spectrum had to preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely challenge was being resolved. If no challenge was filed, Strike 3 could notify the court and request an order requiring Spectrum to release the information; the court stated that it expected then to order release within 21 days. Spectrum could also file its own motion to cancel the subpoena during the applicable periods.
Confidentiality and Case Status
Any information ultimately disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3's rights as described in its complaint. The case was to continue in the name John Doe unless the court ordered otherwise. Strike 3 could not publicly file identifying information, had to file documents containing it in redacted form with an unredacted version under seal, and was ordered not to disclose the information to anyone else.
The order concerned early third-party discovery and procedures for protecting the anonymous defendant's identity. It did not decide whether John Doe downloaded or distributed the movie, whether the allegations were legally valid, or whether Strike 3 would prevail.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.