Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-08788
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Broderick directed Strike 3 to explain its objections to a proposed protective order; the court did not decide the request.
The unidentified internet subscriber, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and the internet service provider involved in the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified person over alleged copyright infringements linked to internet protocol address 67.243.150.114. The subscriber received notice that Strike 3 had subpoenaed the internet service provider for identifying information and denied the allegations.
The subscriber, through counsel, asked for a protective order keeping the subscriber’s identity and personal information confidential. The request cited privacy concerns arising from being linked to a pornography film and said the parties could not agree on the proposed order’s terms.
The court did not state that it granted or denied the protective-order request. Instead, Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Strike 3 to file a letter by March 7, 2023, explaining its objections to the subscriber’s proposed protective order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-08788
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement case against one or more unidentified defendants. The complaint alleged 27 separate infringements between December 2020 and September 2022 and identified the defendants only through internet protocol address 67.243.150.114. The court had allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena on Charter Communications, Inc., the internet service provider, seeking identifying information.
Strike 3 later issued a subpoena seeking the identity of the person assigned that internet protocol address on September 27, 2022, at 16:36:20 Coordinated Universal Time. The subscriber received notice of the subpoena, obtained counsel, and was allowed to proceed anonymously and receive additional time to respond. The subscriber denied the complaint’s allegations.
Requested protective order
The subscriber moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a protective order. A protective order can restrict disclosure of information to prevent harm such as embarrassment, oppression, or an undue burden. The subscriber argued that the identity and personal information of the subscriber, as well as information about people associated with or visiting the subscriber, should remain confidential because of the sensitive privacy issues involved. Counsel stated that the parties had discussed confidentiality but could not agree on the proposed order’s terms.
Court’s action
The court’s March 2, 2023 order did not grant or deny the proposed protective order. Instead, Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed Strike 3 to file a letter by March 7, 2023, outlining its objections to the subscriber’s proposed protective order. The provided text therefore reflects an interim procedural direction rather than a final ruling on the protective-order request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.