Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-04361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe: Judge Rearden granted discovery of the subscriber’s identity from Astound Broadband, with protections and deadlines.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and physical addresses from Astound Broadband. John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to challenge or limit the subpoena and to request anonymous treatment. Astound Broadband must follow the order’s service, preservation, disclosure, and cost procedures.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Astound Broadband, the internet provider, for information identifying the person associated with IP address 209.122.227.203. Strike 3 alleged that the person illegally downloaded or distributed copyrighted films.
The court found good cause to allow the subpoena before the parties’ required early case conference. It found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, needed the information to serve the defendant, and had no other way to identify the defendant. The court also ordered protections because of the risk of mistakenly identifying the wrong person.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted Strike 3’s motion. The subpoena may seek John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers. The order gives John Doe and Astound Broadband opportunities to challenge the subpoena and limits how any disclosed information may be used.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-04361
- Rearden
- June 22, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant identified in the caption by the internet protocol address 209.122.227.203. Strike 3 sought permission to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Astound Broadband, the internet service provider identified in its motion, to learn the defendant’s identity and serve the lawsuit.
The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause to serve the subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The court also found that Strike 3 had established a prima facie claim of copyright infringement, meaning an initial claim sufficient for the limited discovery request; that Strike 3 needed the defendant’s identity to effect service; and that Strike 3 had no alternative way to determine the defendant’s identity.
Order
The court also found good cause for a protective order because of the risk that the subpoena could lead to a false positive identification, causing annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve the third-party subpoena and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 7. Strike 3 may subpoena Astound Broadband for John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. It may not subpoena email addresses or telephone numbers. Strike 3 must attach the court’s order and the notice to the defendant to the subpoena.
Astound Broadband must serve John Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the notice within 60 days after the subpoena is served. John Doe has 30 days from service of the subpoena and order to file a motion contesting the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Astound Broadband may not disclose identifying information before that 30-day period ends. If John Doe or Astound Broadband files a motion to quash, disclosure must wait until the court resolves the issues and orders Astound Broadband to resume providing discovery.
If no timely challenge is filed, Astound Broadband has 10 days after the 30-day period ends to produce responsive information. Astound Broadband must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely motion to quash is pending. It may not charge Strike 3 in advance, and any later production charge must be supported by a billing summary and cost report.
Any information disclosed under the subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights stated in its complaint. The attached notice also states that John Doe may hire a lawyer or represent himself, may seek to proceed anonymously, and may ask the court to prevent disclosure. The notice separately refers to a 60-day period after receiving notice from the ISP for certain challenges or an anonymity request, while the numbered order provision states a 30-day period from service of the subpoena and order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.