Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-04360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rochon granted permission to subpoena the internet provider for Doe’s identity before ordinary discovery began.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from the internet service provider identified in the order. John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena and may remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise. The provider must preserve the information and follow the disclosure restrictions in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only through an internet address, alleging that Doe copied and distributed its copyrighted adult films without permission. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Doe’s internet service provider before the parties’ initial discovery conference so it could learn Doe’s name and address.
The court found good cause for early discovery. It said Strike 3 had shown an initial copyright claim, requested only the subscriber’s name and address, had no other way to identify Doe, needed the information to serve the lawsuit, and faced only a limited privacy interest in the requested information.
Judge Rochon granted the motion subject to protections. The provider must notify Doe, who has 60 days to challenge the subpoena, and Doe may remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise. The case itself was not decided by this order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-04360
- Rochon
- Aug. 2, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe, who was identified in the complaint only as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 74.101.196.80. Strike 3 alleged that Doe copied and distributed its copyrighted works without authorization. It also alleged that the IP address had been traced to a location in New York, New York, and that the IP address was the only available way to identify Doe.
Before the parties’ required initial discovery conference, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Doe’s internet service provider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena sought information identifying the person associated with the IP address.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the parties confer as required by Rule 26(f), unless a court authorizes earlier discovery. The court applied a flexible good-cause and reasonableness standard. It considered whether Strike 3 had shown an initial actionable claim, whether the request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed for the case to proceed, and the subscriber’s privacy interest.
The court concluded that each factor favored early discovery. It found 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 court found the request narrow because it sought the name and address associated with the specific IP address. It also found that the provider subpoena was the only available way to identify Doe, that Doe’s identity was needed for service and for the claim to proceed, and that the privacy interest at issue was limited.
Order
Judge Rochon granted Strike 3’s motion, subject to a protective order. Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Verizon, identified in the opinion as the internet service provider, to obtain 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 the provider to give Doe a copy of the subpoena, the order, and a notice to the defendant within 60 days after service. Doe has 60 days after receiving those materials to move to quash or modify the subpoena. The provider may not disclose identifying information before that period ends, or while a timely challenge is pending. If no challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve the information while any timely challenge is pending.
Doe may proceed anonymously unless and until the court orders otherwise. Information disclosed under the subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. Strike 3’s deadline to serve the summons and complaint was extended to 45 days after receiving the information from the provider. Strike 3 also must submit status letters every 60 days until Doe answers or otherwise responds; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed early discovery and protective procedures. It did not decide whether Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights or otherwise resolve the underlying lawsuit.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.