Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-05850
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Caproni granted identity discovery while protecting the anonymous defendant’s privacy.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Spectrum under the ordered limits. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge or seek to modify the subpoena within 60 days after receiving notice. Spectrum must provide notice, preserve the information, and delay disclosure as the order requires.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement, identifying the defendant only through an Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the defendant’s internet provider, Spectrum, before the parties’ required early case conference so it could learn the defendant’s name and address.
The court found good cause for the subpoena because the requested information was limited and needed to pursue the case. But it also imposed protections because of privacy concerns and the possibility that the internet provider could identify the wrong person.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the subpoena, but only for the defendant’s name and address—not a telephone number or email address. The defendant may remain anonymous and has 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena; the internet provider must wait before releasing information, and any disclosed information may be used only for this lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-05850
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, who was identified only by the alleged Internet Protocol address 72.225.192.225. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider, Spectrum, before the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the name and address associated with that Internet Protocol address.
Ruling on the subpoena
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court emphasized that Strike 3 sought only the defendant’s true name and address, which it found were specific facts necessary to pursue the case. The court granted the motion subject to a protective order.
Strike 3 may immediately serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Spectrum, and potentially on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena. The subpoena may seek only the defendant’s name and address. It may not seek the defendant’s telephone number or email address.
Privacy protections and deadlines
John Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise. Spectrum must provide the defendant with the subpoena, the order, and a notice explaining the case. The defendant has 60 days after receiving those materials to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to cancel or narrow it. Spectrum may not disclose the information during that period. If a timely challenge is filed, Spectrum must wait until the court resolves it and directs Spectrum to proceed.
If no challenge is filed within the 60-day period, Spectrum has 10 additional days to produce the information. Spectrum must preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely challenge is pending. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this case. Strike 3 also may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although it may participate if John Doe initiates those discussions. Judge Valerie Caproni directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by December 1, 2022, and directed the clerk to close the motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.