Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-05440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Rochon granted early discovery allowing a subpoena to Spectrum for Doe’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum, while John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena and may remain anonymous. Spectrum must preserve the information, follow the notice and disclosure deadlines, and may not provide the requested information before the challenge period ends or while a timely challenge is pending.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only through the subscriber assigned to an internet address, alleging that Doe copied and distributed its copyrighted adult films without permission. Strike 3 said it needed information from Doe’s internet service provider, Spectrum, to learn Doe’s name and address.
The court considered whether Strike 3 had shown good cause to seek information before the parties’ normal discovery conference. It found that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, that its request was limited to Doe’s name and address, that Spectrum was the only available source for that information, and that the information was needed for the case to proceed.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the motion subject to protections for Doe. Spectrum must notify Doe and provide 60 days to challenge the subpoena before releasing information; Doe may remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise. The subpoena may not seek Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-05440
- Rochon
- Aug. 2, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, who was identified in the complaint only as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 72.225.165.181. Strike 3 alleged that Doe copied and distributed its copyrighted works without authorization. It also alleged that the internet address had been traced to a location in New York, New York and that the address was the only available way to identify Doe.
Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum, Doe’s internet service provider, before the parties’ required discovery conference. The subpoena sought information identifying the person associated with the internet address.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery generally cannot begin before the parties confer, unless a court authorizes earlier discovery. The court applied a flexible good-cause and reasonableness standard and considered five factors: whether Strike 3 had made an initial showing of an actionable claim, whether the request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed for the case, and Doe’s privacy interest.
The court found that each factor favored early discovery. It concluded that Strike 3 had made an initial copyright-infringement showing by alleging ownership of a valid copyright and that Doe copied elements of the work. The request was limited to the name and address of the person associated with the specified internet address. The court also found that Spectrum was the only available source for identifying Doe and that Doe’s identity was needed for service and for the claim to proceed. It found the privacy interest of an internet subscriber in the sharing of copyrighted information to be minimal.
Ruling and Protective Conditions
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 may serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The subpoena may not seek Doe’s email addresses or telephone numbers.
The order requires Spectrum, within 60 days after being served, to give Doe a copy of the subpoena, the order, and a notice explaining the case and Doe’s rights. Doe has 60 days after receiving that notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. Spectrum may not disclose identifying information before that period ends, or while a timely challenge is pending, unless the court later orders disclosure. If no challenge is filed, Spectrum has 10 days after the 60-day period to provide the responsive information.
The order requires preservation of subpoenaed information while any timely challenge is resolved. Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. Strike 3’s deadline to serve the summons and complaint is extended to 45 days after receiving information from Spectrum. Strike 3 must also file status letters every 60 days until Doe answers or otherwise responds; failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.