Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-02741
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern authorized limited discovery from Verizon Fios to identify the defendant in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek limited identifying information from Verizon Fios about the John Doe defendant. Verizon Fios must follow the notice, preservation, timing, and disclosure requirements, while the defendant may challenge the subpoena or seek to remain anonymous.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified John Doe, alleging that the defendant used BitTorrent to download and distribute 24 copyrighted works. The company knew only the internet address associated with the alleged activity.
Strike 3 asked for permission to subpoena the defendant’s internet provider, Verizon Fios, before the parties’ required preliminary meeting. The subpoena sought only the defendant’s true name and current and permanent addresses.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the request. Verizon Fios must notify the defendant, who has 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymity; the provider cannot disclose identifying information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-02741
- Philip Halpern
- June 1, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement lawsuit against an unidentified defendant, described as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 71.167.177.215. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant downloaded and distributed 24 of its copyrighted adult motion pictures through BitTorrent. The complaint stated that the defendant’s identity could be obtained only from the internet service provider associated with that address, Verizon Fios.
Strike 3 filed an application asking for permission to serve Verizon Fios with a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested information was limited to the defendant’s true name and current and permanent addresses. Strike 3 did not receive permission to seek the defendant’s email addresses or telephone numbers.
Reasoning
The court applied a flexible “reasonableness and good cause” standard for early discovery. It considered five factors: whether Strike 3 had shown a preliminary claim for copyright infringement, whether the discovery request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed to advance the lawsuit, and the defendant’s privacy interest.
The court found that Strike 3 had adequately alleged the basic elements of copyright infringement for purposes of the discovery request: ownership of valid copyrights and unauthorized copying. The court also found that the request was narrowly limited, that Verizon Fios was the only identified source of the subscriber information, and that the information was needed to identify and serve the defendant. Although the court recognized that identifying the subscriber could cause embarrassment and that mistaken identifications could pressure innocent people to settle, it concluded that Strike 3’s need for the name and address outweighed the defendant’s limited privacy interest in sharing copyrighted material.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Strike 3’s application. Strike 3 may immediately serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to obtain information identifying the defendant, subject to the order’s limits and protections.
Verizon Fios must serve the defendant with the subpoena, the order, and a notice within 60 days after receiving the subpoena. The defendant then has 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging or changing the subpoena, including a motion to cancel it or limit it. Verizon Fios may not disclose identifying information before that period expires or while a timely challenge is pending. If no challenge is filed, Verizon Fios has 10 days after the 60-day period to provide the responsive information. The order also permits the defendant to seek anonymity and restricts any disclosed information to use in protecting Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.