Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-06619
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Willis denied Doe’s motion to quash and granted Strike 3’s request for more time to serve him.
The ruling allowed Strike 3 Holdings, LLC to pursue identifying information from Doe’s internet-service provider and extended Strike 3’s deadline to serve Doe. It denied Doe’s request to block the subpoena; the internet-service provider was the subpoena recipient.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 sought the name and address of an internet subscriber identified by an internet-protocol address so it could pursue a copyright-infringement case. Doe asked the court to block a subpoena directed to the subscriber’s internet-service provider.
Doe argued that the subpoena sought protected information, imposed an undue burden, and lacked adequate support. The court found that the subpoena sought specific information relevant to Strike 3’s initial copyright claim, that disclosure was necessary to identify Doe, and that Doe had only a limited privacy interest. It also held that any burden from the subpoena would fall on the internet-service provider, not Doe.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the motion to quash. She also granted Strike 3’s request for more time and allowed it until January 1, 2023, to serve Doe with the summons and amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-06619
- John Cronan
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought this action against a defendant identified as “John Doe,” whom it associated with internet-protocol address 98.7.9.195. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on the defendant’s internet-service provider to obtain the subscriber’s name and address. District Judge John P. Cronan granted that request on August 23, 2022. Doe then moved to quash, or cancel, the subpoena.
Doe objected to disclosure of the name and address on three grounds: that the subpoena sought privileged or otherwise protected information under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(iii); that it imposed an undue burden under Rule 45(d)(3)(iv); and that it was unsupported.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the five-factor test used to balance an anonymous internet user’s limited First Amendment privacy interest against a copyright holder’s need for identifying information. The factors consider whether the plaintiff has shown a preliminary claim of actionable harm, whether the discovery request is specific, whether alternative ways exist to obtain the information, whether the information is needed to advance the claim, and the objecting party’s expectation of privacy.
The court concluded that Strike 3 had made a preliminary showing of actionable copyright harm. It found that the request for the subscriber’s name and address was specific, that Strike 3 had no other way to obtain the information, and that the information was needed to advance the case. The court also found that Doe’s expectation of privacy was minimal in the circumstances described.
The court separately rejected Doe’s undue-burden argument because the subpoena was directed to the internet-service provider, not Doe. Any production burden would therefore fall on the provider. Finally, the court found that Strike 3’s supporting allegations and memorandum adequately supported the subpoena and showed that the requested information was relevant, including because it would allow Strike 3 to serve Doe and investigate whether others had access to the internet-protocol address.
The court also noted that Strike 3 had stated that its proposed protective order would allow Doe to remain anonymous, but the court found no such provision in either the proposed or signed order. It invited Strike 3 to submit a corrective application if it intended to allow Doe to proceed anonymously.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the motion to quash. She granted Strike 3’s request for an extension of time to serve Doe and set January 1, 2023, as the deadline to serve the summons and amended complaint.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.