Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-04668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Vyskocil allowed early discovery so Spectrum could identify the anonymous defendant in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena Spectrum for John Doe’s name and address. Spectrum must follow the order’s requirements, and any disclosed information may be used only to prosecute this case. The order does not determine John Doe’s liability.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, alleging that the defendant used BitTorrent to download and distribute its copyrighted works. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider associated with the listed internet address, before the parties’ required discovery conference.
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It allowed the company to serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and address, finding that the request was specific, necessary, and supported by an initial showing of copyright infringement. The court also required Strike 3 to provide Spectrum with the order and limited use of the information to prosecuting this case.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s order authorized discovery only; it did not decide whether John Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-04668
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 19, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe used the BitTorrent file-sharing network to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted works. The alleged activity was associated with the internet address 98.7.45.226. Because the defendant was identified only as John Doe, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve Spectrum, an internet service provider, with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s identity.
Strike 3 filed the request before the parties had held the discovery conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Rule 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before that conference, but permits a court to authorize earlier discovery.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the Second Circuit’s factors for deciding whether early discovery is reasonable and supported by good cause in an infringement case:
- Strike 3 made an initial showing of copyright infringement by identifying the copyrighted works and describing the alleged copying, including the dates and times of the alleged activity. - The requested information—John Doe’s true name and permanent address—was specific. - The court was not aware of another way for Strike 3 to identify the defendant because BitTorrent users can remain largely anonymous. - The information was necessary for Strike 3 to identify and serve John Doe and to proceed with its claims. The court also noted that internet service providers may routinely delete relevant information. - The court found that internet subscribers have only a minimal expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
The court concluded that these factors supported expedited discovery. This ruling concerned whether Strike 3 could obtain identifying information; it did not determine whether John Doe was liable for copyright infringement.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion and ordered that it may serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of the defendant to whom Spectrum assigned the internet address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 must serve Spectrum with a copy of the order at the same time. If Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B).
The court further ordered that Strike 3 may use information disclosed through the subpoena only to prosecute its claims in this action. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 5.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.