Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for direct copyright infringement. According to the complaint, Strike 3 owns copyrighted adult motion pictures and determined that a person using an internet protocol address had downloaded and distributed 27 digital files through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. The complaint identified copyright-registration information for the works, but did not publicly disclose their titles.

Because Doe’s name and address were unknown, Strike 3 asked to issue a subpoena to Doe’s internet service provider before ordinary discovery began. On January 6, 2023, the court granted that request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). The court found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, specifically identified the information sought, shown that it could not obtain the information another way, and shown that the information was needed to move the case forward. The court also found that Doe had only a minimal expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material. It issued a protective order requiring the internet service provider to notify Doe and giving Doe 60 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously.

Doe filed the motion without a lawyer on March 29, 2023, seeking to vacate the January 6 order and quash the subpoena.

Arguments

Doe argued that the subpoena imposed an undue burden, sought information not relevant to Strike 3’s claim, and was not needed to advance the lawsuit. Doe’s main arguments were that Strike 3 brought the case in bad faith to pressure a settlement by threatening public disclosure of the alleged downloading, and that identifying the subscriber would not necessarily identify the person who downloaded the files because multiple people might use the same internet connection.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that the person challenging a subpoena generally bears the burden of persuasion. It also considered Doe’s filing liberally because Doe was not represented by counsel.

The court rejected the undue-burden argument. It reasoned that the subpoena required the internet service provider—not Doe—to produce information, and therefore Doe could not object on the ground that the subpoena imposed an undue burden on Doe. The court added that, even if Doe could raise that objection, Doe had not shown that the limited burden on the provider was excessive or too broad.

The court also rejected any privilege or privacy objection to disclosure of the name and address, explaining that the subpoena sought only that identifying information. It held that the possibility that another person used the internet connection might become a defense to the infringement claim, but a general denial of responsibility was not a proper basis for quashing the subpoena. The subpoena would allow Strike 3 to obtain information needed to serve Doe with the complaint and allow Doe to defend against the accusations.

The court found no reason to reconsider its January 6 findings and denied the motion to quash. It also denied, on Doe’s behalf, a request to permit Doe to proceed anonymously because Doe had not made such a request. The court stated that Doe had offered no evidence supporting the concern that disclosure would be used to coerce a settlement, and noted Strike 3’s agreement that Doe could proceed anonymously if Doe wished to do so.