Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-02186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Rearden authorized a subpoena to identify the unnamed defendant in an alleged copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s name and addresses from Verizon Fios. John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena or request anonymity before disclosure. Verizon Fios must follow the notice, preservation, and disclosure procedures in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and said it needed information from Verizon Fios to learn the defendant’s name and address. The lawsuit alleges that copyrighted films were illegally downloaded or distributed.
The court found good cause to allow Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required early case meeting. The subpoena may seek John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers. The court also required notice to John Doe and gave the defendant time to challenge the subpoena or ask to remain anonymous.
Judge Rearden ordered Verizon Fios to preserve the information and generally wait before disclosing it. If no timely challenge is filed, Verizon Fios must produce responsive information within 10 days after the challenge period ends, and Strike 3 may use the information only to protect its rights in the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-02186
- Rearden
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, whose internet service was associated with IP address 68.129.185.196. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant illegally downloaded and/or distributed copyrighted films. Strike 3 asked to serve Verizon Fios, the identified internet service provider, with a Rule 45 subpoena—a formal demand for information issued in a lawsuit—to determine John Doe’s identity.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause to allow the subpoena before the parties held the early case-planning conference normally required by Rule 26(f). It concluded that Strike 3 had shown a preliminary claim of copyright infringement, needed John Doe’s identity to serve the defendant, and had no alternative way to identify that person. The court also found good cause for a protective order because of the risk of mistaken identifications causing annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The subpoena may not seek email addresses or telephone numbers and must include the court’s order and the attached notice to the defendant.
Verizon Fios must serve John Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the notice within 60 days after the subpoena is served. Under the order, John Doe then has 30 days after service of the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Verizon Fios may not disclose identifying information before that 30-day period ends. If John Doe or Verizon Fios files a motion to quash, disclosure must wait until the court addresses the motion and orders Verizon Fios to resume producing the requested information.
If the 30-day period expires without a challenge, Verizon Fios has 10 days to produce responsive information. Verizon Fios must preserve subpoenaed information while any timely motion to quash is pending, confer with Strike 3 about production costs, and may not charge costs in advance. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.