Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Oetken allowed expedited discovery but gave John Doe 60 days to challenge the subpoena.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, and Verizon Fios. The order permits Strike 3 to seek Doe’s identifying information but gives Doe and Verizon Fios time to challenge the subpoena and restricts how any disclosed information may be used.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that unidentified John Doe distributed its copyrighted movies, which contained pornographic material, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios for Doe’s name and addresses.
The court found good cause for immediate discovery because Strike 3 could not identify or serve Doe without it. But the court rejected the proposed protections as inadequate and required Verizon Fios to notify Doe before releasing any identifying information.
Judge Oetken ordered that Doe or Verizon Fios could challenge, modify, or seek to keep the subpoena anonymous within 60 days. The court also limited any disclosed information to use in protecting Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-04362
- James Oetken
- June 28, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified defendant, identified as John Doe and associated with Internet Protocol address 108.46.142.62, distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies in violation of the Copyright Act. The movies contained pornographic material. Strike 3 asked for permission to obtain expedited discovery—a request for information before the ordinary discovery process—from Verizon Fios to learn John Doe’s name and current and permanent addresses.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause to permit some expedited discovery because Strike 3 would otherwise be unable to identify John Doe or serve him. The court stated that Verizon Fios was effectively barred from disclosing Doe’s identity without a court-ordered subpoena because of the federal cable-privacy statute.
The court also found that Strike 3’s proposed order did not adequately protect John Doe. An Internet connection’s subscriber may not be the person who allegedly infringed a copyright; another person with access to the connection could have been responsible. The court noted that this risk was especially serious because the alleged infringement involved pornographic material, which could create pressure to settle embarrassing allegations that had not yet been substantiated.
Order
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered that Strike 3 could immediately serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking John Doe’s name and current and permanent addresses. Strike 3 had to provide Verizon Fios with a copy of the order, and Verizon Fios had to provide a copy to John Doe by a reasonable method, including mail to Doe’s last known address.
John Doe had 60 days after being served with the order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to cancel or change it, or to ask to litigate anonymously. Verizon Fios could not disclose Doe’s identifying information to Strike 3 during that period. If Doe or Verizon Fios filed a motion, Verizon Fios could not disclose the information until the court resolved the issues and ordered disclosure to resume.
If no timely challenge was filed, Verizon Fios would have 10 days after the 60-day period to produce the subpoenaed information. Verizon Fios also had to preserve the information while any timely challenge was pending. Any information ultimately disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights as stated in its complaint. The clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 6.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.