Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-05441
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Clarke allowed limited subpoena discovery to identify Doe while preserving anonymity and requiring safeguards.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge the subpoena, while Verizon Fios must follow the notice, preservation, timing, and disclosure restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that Doe downloaded, copied, and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios, the internet provider, for information identifying the subscriber.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a preliminary basis for its copyright claim and that the request was limited to the subscriber’s name and address. The court also found that the information was necessary to serve Doe and that the subpoena was the only available way to obtain it.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted Strike 3’s request to serve the subpoena but barred requests for Doe’s phone number or email address. She allowed Doe to remain anonymous, gave Doe and the internet provider 60 days to challenge the subpoena, and imposed additional privacy and information-use protections.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-05441
- Clarke
- Aug. 9, 2023
Background
Strike 3 alleged that John Doe, identified only by the Internet Protocol address 74.108.220.167, downloaded, copied, and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies in violation of the Copyright Act. Strike 3 sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios, Doe’s internet service provider, to obtain Doe’s identity, investigate the alleged infringement, and serve the lawsuit.
Expedited discovery
The court applied the standard used for expedited discovery—discovery allowed before the usual schedule when there is good cause and the request is reasonable. The court considered whether Strike 3 had made a preliminary showing of actionable harm, whether the request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed to advance the case, and Doe’s privacy interest.
The court found that Strike 3 had made a preliminary showing of copyright infringement by describing its original copyrighted works and providing details about the alleged copying, including dates and times. The court also found that the subpoena was narrowly limited to the subscriber’s name and address, that Strike 3 had no reasonable alternative way to obtain the information, and that the information was needed to serve Doe and continue the litigation. The court concluded that Doe had only a limited privacy expectation in the alleged transmission or distribution of copyrighted material, while also recognizing that the subject matter could cause embarrassment.
Rulings and protections
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios for Doe’s name and address. Strike 3 was required to include the order and a specified notice with the subpoena, and it was not permitted to subpoena Doe’s phone number or email address.
The court also issued a protective order. Doe could proceed anonymously unless the court ordered otherwise. Strike 3 could not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without court permission, although it could participate if Doe initiated those discussions.
Verizon Fios was given 60 days after service of the subpoena to notify Doe and provide Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the notice. Doe then had 60 days to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or change it. Verizon Fios could not release identifying information during that period, or while a timely challenge was pending. If no challenge was filed, Verizon Fios would have 10 additional days to provide the requested information. The provider was required to preserve the information, and any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit.
The court extended Strike 3’s deadline to serve Doe to 45 days after receiving the information from Verizon Fios. Strike 3 also had to submit status letters every 60 days until Doe answered or otherwise responded; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court directed the clerk to terminate Docket No. 7.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.