Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-10694
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Liman granted early discovery allowing a subpoena for Doe’s name and address, with privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain limited identifying information about John Doe from Spectrum. John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge or seek anonymous treatment of the subpoena, while Spectrum must follow the court’s notice and production procedures.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that Doe illegally downloaded and distributed its copyrighted videos. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Spectrum, Doe’s internet service provider, before the parties’ initial discovery meeting to learn Doe’s identity.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena because Strike 3 had adequately alleged copyright infringement, requested only Doe’s name and address, could not obtain that information elsewhere, needed it to serve Doe, and outweighed Doe’s limited privacy interest in sharing copyrighted material.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion and authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Spectrum for Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but no additional information. The court also required notice to Doe and gave Doe 60 days to challenge or modify the subpoena or ask to remain anonymous.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-10694
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 6, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 66.65.32.21, illegally downloaded and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted videos through a peer-to-peer file-sharing network. Strike 3 moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, the internet service provider identified in the motion, before the parties held the conference ordinarily required before discovery begins.
Court’s analysis
Rule 26(d)(1) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the court orders otherwise. The court applied a flexible good-cause standard and considered five factors: whether Strike 3 made a concrete initial showing of harm; whether its request was specific; whether another way existed to obtain the information; whether the information was needed to advance the claim; and Doe’s expectation of privacy.
The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement by alleging ownership of registered copyrights and alleging, supported by a forensic expert’s declaration, that Doe downloaded and distributed the works. The request was limited to the subscriber’s name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address. The court found that Spectrum was the only entity able to connect the address to a user’s identity, that the information was necessary to serve Doe and move the case forward, and that Doe’s limited privacy interest did not outweigh Strike 3’s interest in identifying the defendant for service.
Because the allegations involved adult content, the court also found good cause for a protective order to reduce the risk of mistaken identification, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 was barred from requesting additional information, including an email address or telephone number.
Spectrum was ordered to serve Doe with the subpoena, the court’s order, and a notice to the defendant within 60 days after receiving the subpoena. Doe then had 60 days from service of the subpoena to file a motion challenging, quashing, or modifying it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. If Doe contested the subpoena, Spectrum could not release Doe’s contact information until the court ruled on the challenge. If neither Doe nor Spectrum contested the subpoena within 60 days, Spectrum would have 10 days to produce the responsive information, which Strike 3 could use only to protect the rights described in its complaint.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.