Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-02188
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Abrams granted expedited discovery so Strike 3 could subpoena Verizon for the anonymous defendant’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain a subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and addresses from Verizon Internet Services. John Doe may challenge or seek to limit disclosure and may request anonymity. Verizon must provide notice, preserve the information during a timely challenge, and disclose it only under the order’s conditions.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 alleged that an unidentified person connected to a specified Internet Protocol address downloaded and distributed its copyrighted adult movies. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Internet Services, the internet provider, for the person’s name and address.
The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement and that its request was specific, necessary, and unavailable through another means. The court also found that the defendant’s privacy interest did not outweigh the request, although it recognized the risk of embarrassment and mistaken identification.
Judge Abrams granted Strike 3’s motion and authorized the subpoena for the defendant’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers. The order gave the defendant 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena or seek to remain anonymous, and required Verizon to preserve the information while any timely challenge was pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-02188
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 4, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe, who was identified only by the Internet Protocol address 68.129.238.62. Strike 3 alleged that Doe downloaded and distributed its copyrighted motion pictures through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Before the parties’ initial required conference, Strike 3 filed an expedited-discovery motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). It sought permission to serve Verizon Internet Services with a subpoena to identify Doe’s name and address.
Court’s analysis
The court applied a flexible “reasonableness and good cause” standard and considered five factors used for expedited discovery:
- Initial showing of infringement. The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing because its complaint identified the copyrighted works, their publication dates, copyright-registration numbers, and registration dates. The complaint also described Strike 3’s “VXN Scan” system and alleged that Doe used BitTorrent to download and distribute the works.
- Specificity of the request. The court found the request sufficiently narrow because Strike 3 sought only Doe’s name and address.
- No alternative means. The court accepted Strike 3’s assertion that Verizon was the only entity able to connect the specified Internet Protocol address with the subscriber’s identity and contact information.
- Need for the information. The court found that the information was necessary because Strike 3 could not serve Doe or pursue the case without it.
- Privacy. The court acknowledged that being identified in a case involving adult movies could cause embarrassment. It nevertheless found that internet subscribers have only a minimal expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It authorized Strike 3 to immediately serve Verizon with a subpoena seeking Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The subpoena could not seek Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers.
The court required Verizon to notify Doe within 60 days after receiving the subpoena. If Doe or Verizon did not challenge the subpoena during that period, Verizon would have 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3. Doe could move to cancel or modify the subpoena or could seek to proceed anonymously. If Doe filed such a request, Verizon was directed not to disclose the contact information until the court ruled on it. The court also required Verizon to preserve the information while a timely challenge was pending.
The order included a protective order because of the risk of mistaken identification, limited any disclosed information to use in protecting Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit, adjourned the initial conference indefinitely, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion. The opinion addressed discovery and identification procedures; it did not decide whether Doe was ultimately liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.