Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-01468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Liman granted permission to subpoena Spectrum for Doe’s name and address, with privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings may subpoena Spectrum for John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymity, while Spectrum must follow the court’s disclosure procedures.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings sued John Doe, whose identity it said was unknown, alleging that the internet user assigned a particular Internet Protocol address illegally downloaded and distributed its copyrighted adult films using BitTorrent. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Doe’s internet service provider, Spectrum, before the parties held their usual initial meeting about the case.
The court found good cause for early discovery because Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, requested only the subscriber’s name and address, said Spectrum was the only source for that information, and needed it to serve Doe. The court also found that Doe’s privacy interest was outweighed by Strike 3’s need to identify the defendant, while recognizing the risk of mistaken identification and embarrassment.
Judge Liman granted Strike 3’s motion and authorized a subpoena seeking Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but no email address or telephone number. The court ordered protective procedures: Spectrum must notify Doe, Doe has 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymity, and Spectrum must wait to disclose information if Doe contests it.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-01468
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 1, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, identified only by the internet address 142.255.58.90, illegally downloaded and distributed dozens of Strike 3 films through BitTorrent. Strike 3 said it owned the films and that Doe’s identity was otherwise unknown. It moved without first holding the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, the internet service provider associated with the address.
Strike 3 submitted declarations from its chief technology officer, a forensic analyst, and an employee. Those declarations described Strike 3’s infringement-detection system, the evidence allegedly showing that the IP address transmitted data reflecting Strike 3’s works, and the basis for identifying Spectrum as the provider that could identify the subscriber.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the court orders otherwise. The court applied a flexible good-cause and reasonableness test, considering five factors: whether Strike 3 made an initial showing of infringement, whether the request was specific, whether other ways of obtaining the information existed, whether the information was necessary to advance the case, and Doe’s privacy expectation.
The court found that Strike 3 satisfied those factors for purposes of the motion. It had made an initial showing of copyright infringement by alleging ownership of valid copyrights and the copying and distribution of original works, supported by copyright information, declarations, and forensic evidence. The subpoena was limited to the name and address of the subscriber assigned the specified IP address. The court accepted Strike 3’s showing that Spectrum was the only entity able to connect that address to a subscriber and that the information was needed to serve Doe and continue the lawsuit.
The court found that internet subscribers have a minimal privacy expectation in sharing copyrighted material and that Strike 3’s interest in identifying Doe outweighed that interest. Because the allegations involved adult content and the court saw a substantial risk of mistaken identification, embarrassment, or undue burden, it also found good cause for protective procedures.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena seeking only John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The subpoena could not request additional information, including an email address or telephone number, and had to include the court’s order and a notice to Doe.
Spectrum was ordered to serve Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the notice within 60 days after receiving the subpoena. Doe then had 60 days after receiving notice to move to quash or modify the subpoena, otherwise contest it, or request permission to proceed anonymously. If Doe contested the subpoena, Spectrum could not release the contact information to Strike 3 until the court ruled.
If neither Doe nor Spectrum contested the subpoena during the 60-day period, Spectrum would have 10 days to provide the requested information. Strike 3 could use information disclosed under the subpoena only to protect its rights described in the complaint. The clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry. This order authorized early discovery and established a process for identifying Doe; it did not decide whether Doe actually infringed Strike 3’s copyrights.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.