Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-08788
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Broderick extended the subpoena response deadline, barred disclosure, and maintained Doe’s anonymity.
John Doe’s deadline to respond to the subpoena was extended to February 24, 2023; the defendant’s internet service provider was barred from producing subpoenaed information to Strike 3 Holdings until further order; and John Doe’s anonymity was maintained.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe involved an Internet subscriber who received notice of a subpoena seeking information from the subscriber’s internet service provider. The subscriber denied being the person who downloaded the copyrighted material and asked to remain anonymous.
The court extended the deadline to move, object, or otherwise respond to the subpoena from January 20 to February 24, 2023. It also ordered the internet service provider not to produce subpoenaed information to Strike 3 Holdings until further order and allowed the defendant to continue using the name John Doe.
Judge Broderick entered these orders on January 23, 2023. The order addressed the subpoena, disclosure of information, and the defendant’s anonymity; it did not decide whether the subscriber infringed copyright.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-08788
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 23, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC issued a subpoena to Charter Communications, Inc., the defendant’s internet service provider, seeking information connected to an Internet Protocol address. The defendant, identified in the case as John Doe, received notice of the subpoena and appeared through counsel. The defense letter stated that the defendant denied downloading the copyrighted material and that it was not yet clear whether the defendant was the person Strike 3 Holdings alleged had done so.
Requests
The defendant requested a 30-day extension of the January 20, 2023 deadline to move, object, or otherwise respond to the subpoena, extending the deadline to February 24, 2023. The defendant also asked the court to prevent the internet service provider from disclosing information in response to the subpoena until further order and to allow the defendant to continue litigating anonymously as John Doe.
The defense letter argued that the allegations involved sensitive personal matters, that disclosure could cause ridicule and reputational harm, and that an Internet Protocol address might not identify the actual person responsible for an alleged infringement. It also argued that keeping the defendant anonymous at the pre-discovery stage would not prejudice Strike 3 Holdings and that there was no apparent public interest requiring disclosure of the defendant’s identity. These points were presented in the defense submission; the order itself does not provide a separate explanation of the court’s reasoning.
Order
The court ordered that the defendant’s time to move, object, or otherwise respond to the subpoena was extended to February 24, 2023. It further ordered that the defendant’s internet service provider could not produce subpoenaed information to Strike 3 Holdings until further order of the court. The court also ordered that the defendant’s anonymity be maintained and that the defendant could continue using the pseudonym John Doe.
The order did not decide whether John Doe infringed copyright or whether Strike 3 Holdings could ultimately prevail. It addressed subpoena timing, disclosure, and anonymity.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.