Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-00675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Gorenstein allowed a limited subpoena for the subscriber’s name and address before the case’s initial conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified subscriber associated with IP address 68.174.8.155, and Spectrum. The order permits limited discovery while protecting the subscriber’s identity and giving the subscriber and Spectrum opportunities to challenge the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, identified by the Internet Protocol address 68.174.8.155. The complaint alleges that the subscriber illegally downloaded or distributed movies in digital form. Strike 3 did not yet know the subscriber’s name or address.
The court granted Strike 3’s request to serve Spectrum with a subpoena before the parties’ initial conference, but only to obtain the subscriber’s name and address. Spectrum must notify the subscriber, who then has 60 days to ask the court to cancel or change the subpoena. The identifying information must remain protected and may be used only for the lawsuit.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order. He allowed the subpoena subject to these limits and directed that the case continue under “John Doe” unless the court later orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-00675
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified subscriber associated with Internet Protocol address 68.174.8.155 illegally downloaded or distributed movies in digital form. Strike 3 sought permission to serve Spectrum with a subpoena before the parties held the initial conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The purpose was to learn the subscriber’s name and address so Strike 3 could formally serve the complaint.
Ruling and limits
The court granted the motion to the extent stated in the order. Within 14 days, Strike 3 could serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45, but it could seek only the subscriber’s name and address—not a telephone number, email address, or other information. The subpoena had to include the complaint, the order, and a notice to the subscriber.
Spectrum had 60 days after receiving the subpoena to deliver those materials to the subscriber. Spectrum also had to tell Strike 3 when and how it delivered them and any information it had about whether the subscriber received them. Spectrum could not disclose the subscriber’s name or address to Strike 3 unless the court later authorized disclosure.
After delivery, the subscriber had 60 days to ask the court to cancel or modify the subpoena. Spectrum had to preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely challenge was pending and could file its own motion to cancel the subpoena during the specified periods. If the subscriber did not file a timely challenge, Strike 3 could ask the court to order Spectrum to release the requested information; the order stated that the court expected then to direct release within 21 days.
Confidentiality and anonymous litigation
Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint. The case was to proceed in the name “John Doe” unless the court ordered otherwise. Strike 3 could not publicly file identifying information, had to file documents containing that information in redacted form with unredacted versions under seal, and was ordered not to disclose the information to anyone else.
Effect of the notice
The attached notice told the subscriber that no answer to the complaint was required at that stage. It explained that the subscriber could seek to cancel or modify the subpoena within 60 days after Spectrum sent the notice and could proceed with or without a lawyer. It also stated that, absent a challenge, Strike 3 would obtain the subscriber’s name and address and could then serve the complaint.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued and authorized the order as a United States Magistrate Judge. The order relied substantially on the reasons given in a prior related proceeding.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.