Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:23-cv-04359
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Hellerstein granted permission to subpoena Verizon Fios for information identifying the alleged copyright infringer.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the name and address of the unidentified Doe defendant from Verizon Fios through a pre-conference subpoena. The order also affects the Doe subscriber, whose identifying information may be disclosed for purposes of identifying and serving the defendant.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified John Doe, alleging that the person using IP address 74.101.199.37 distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted adult-film content through BitTorrent. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios, the internet service provider, for the subscriber’s name and address before the parties held their required discovery conference.
The court found that all five relevant factors supported early discovery: Strike 3 described a strong initial copyright-infringement claim, requested only identifying information, had no practical alternative to contacting the internet provider, needed the information to identify and serve the defendant, and had an interest that outweighed the defendant’s privacy interests.
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the subpoena before the required conference. Judge Hellerstein did not decide the ultimate copyright-infringement claim; he authorized limited discovery to identify the defendant.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-04359
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned IP address 74.101.199.37. Strike 3 alleged that the IP address was used to distribute its copyrighted film content through BitTorrent without permission. Strike 3 stated that this distribution caused economic harm because its works were available for free downloading.
Strike 3 sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to serve Verizon Fios, an internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested information was limited to the name and address of the subscriber associated with the IP address. Strike 3 said it needed that information to identify the defendant, investigate the alleged infringement, and serve the lawsuit.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that parties generally must confer before seeking discovery, but Rule 26(d)(1) allows a court to authorize discovery earlier. The court applied five factors used in copyright cases involving unidentified internet users:
- Initial copyright claim: The court found that Strike 3 had a strong preliminary claim because its complaint described original copyrighted works and gave specific details about the alleged copying, including the date and time of the alleged infringement.
- Specificity: The subpoena sought only the subscriber’s name and address, which the court found sufficiently limited.
- Lack of alternatives: The court found that BitTorrent’s anonymity made Verizon Fios’s subscriber records likely to be the only practical way to identify the defendant.
- Importance of the information: The information was necessary for Strike 3 to identify and serve the defendant, and the court noted that the records could be lost through routine deletion if discovery were delayed.
- Privacy interests: The court concluded that Strike 3’s interest in learning the defendant’s name and address outweighed the defendant’s privacy interest. It relied on Second Circuit authority stating that subscribers have no legitimate privacy interest in their IP address or in unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material.
Disposition
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve the third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorized limited discovery aimed at identifying the defendant; it did not determine whether the defendant ultimately infringed Strike 3’s copyrights. A separate accompanying order was to be issued.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.