Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-07793
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Rochon allowed an early subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant through Spectrum.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain limited identifying information about John Doe from Spectrum through an authorized subpoena. John Doe receives notice and a 60-day opportunity to challenge the subpoena, may remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise, and may have the information used only for purposes related to the complaint. Spectrum must follow the notice, preservation, timing, and disclosure restrictions in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only through an internet address, claiming that Doe copied and distributed its copyrighted adult films without permission. Strike 3 said Spectrum, Doe’s internet provider, was the only way to learn Doe’s identity.
The court granted Strike 3’s request to serve Spectrum with a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. The subpoena may seek Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers. The court also established notice, objection, privacy, and information-use protections.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon found good cause for early discovery because Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, requested specific information, lacked another way to identify Doe, needed the information to serve the lawsuit, and faced only a limited privacy concern. Doe may remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-07793
- Rochon
- Sept. 27, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, who was identified in the complaint only through the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 104.162.230.126. Strike 3 alleged that Doe copied and distributed its copyrighted works without authorization. Strike 3 also alleged that the only way to identify Doe was through the Internet Service Provider associated with the address, Spectrum.
Before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Strike 3 asked for permission to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45. The subpoena sought information identifying the subscriber assigned to the Internet Protocol address.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 26 generally bars discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless a court authorizes it. The court applied a flexible good-cause and reasonableness standard, considering five factors: whether the plaintiff showed an initial actionable claim; whether the discovery request was specific; whether other ways existed to obtain the information; whether the information was needed for the case to proceed; and the subscriber’s privacy interest.
The court found that all five factors favored early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had made an initial copyright-infringement showing by alleging ownership of a valid copyright and copying of elements of the work. The request was limited to the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the specified Internet Protocol address. The court also found that Spectrum’s information was the only available way to identify Doe, that Doe’s identity was needed to serve the lawsuit and allow it to proceed, and that the privacy interest in sharing copyrighted information was minimal.
Ruling and Protective Conditions
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It also found good cause for a protective order because of the subject matter of the copyrighted material and the risk that an Internet Protocol address could falsely identify a person.
The order permits Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. It does not permit Strike 3 to subpoena Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers. Within 60 days after receiving the subpoena, Spectrum must provide Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice. Doe then has 60 days after receiving that notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or modify it. Spectrum may not disclose identifying information before that period ends, or while a timely challenge is pending, unless the court later directs it to do so.
If no challenge is filed within the 60-day period, Spectrum has 10 days to produce the responsive information. Spectrum must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. Doe may proceed anonymously unless and until the court orders otherwise. Information disclosed to Strike 3 may be used only to protect the rights asserted in the complaint. Strike 3’s deadline to serve Doe was extended to 45 days after receiving the information from Spectrum, and Strike 3 must file status letters every 60 days until Doe answers or otherwise responds. The court warned that failing to file those letters could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.