Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 23, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-03851
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Caproni granted a discovery subpoena, with privacy safeguards, to identify the anonymous defendant in a copyright case.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena Spectrum and potentially other identified internet service providers for John Doe’s name and address. John Doe may remain anonymous and has 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena; the provider must withhold the information while a timely challenge is pending.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement, identifying Doe only through the Internet Protocol address 74.72.34.97. The company asked to subpoena Doe’s Internet service provider, Spectrum, before the parties’ required initial conference to obtain Doe’s name and address.

The court allowed the subpoena but imposed protections. Strike 3 may seek only the defendant’s name and address, not a telephone number or email address. Doe may remain anonymous, must receive notice, and has 60 days after notice to challenge the subpoena. The provider may not disclose information while a timely challenge is pending.

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the motion subject to the protective order and directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by September 16, 2022. The order did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-03851
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
May 23, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against John Doe. The complaint identified Doe only by the alleged Internet Protocol address 74.72.34.97. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Doe’s Internet service provider, Spectrum, before the conference normally required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed subpoena sought the name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address that Strike 3 alleges was used to infringe its copyrights. The court relied on earlier opinions addressing similar requests and found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court also recognized privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material and the possibility that the provider could falsely identify a person who was not responsible.

Ruling and Protective Conditions

The court granted Strike 3’s motion subject to a protective order. The order provides that:

- John Doe may proceed anonymously unless and until the court orders otherwise. - Strike 3 may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission. If Doe begins settlement discussions, Strike 3 may participate and settle the case. - Strike 3 may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Spectrum seeking only the defendant’s name and address. It may not seek a telephone number or email address. The subpoena must include the order and the attached notice to the defendant. - Strike 3 may serve the same type of subpoena on another internet service provider identified through a response as providing internet services to Doe. - The provider must notify Doe within 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order. - Doe has 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The provider may not disclose information before that period ends. If Doe or the provider files such a motion, disclosure must wait until the court resolves it and authorizes disclosure. - If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the requested information. - The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. - A provider receiving the subpoena must confer with Strike 3 and may not demand advance payment. If it charges production costs, it must provide Strike 3 with a billing summary and cost report. - Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights asserted in the complaint.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by September 16, 2022 and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed at Docket Entry 6. The order addressed discovery and anonymity procedures; it did not determine whether Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.