Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-07544
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Oetken allowed protected discovery to identify the internet subscriber sued over alleged copyright infringement.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios. John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymous litigation. Verizon Fios must preserve the information and withhold it while the challenge period or any timely challenge is pending.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, an unidentified defendant, alleging that he distributed its copyrighted movies. The company asked to subpoena Verizon Fios for the subscriber’s name and addresses so it could identify and serve him.
The court found good cause for immediate discovery because the company otherwise could not identify John Doe. But it also found that the proposed order did not adequately protect him, especially because the movies contained pornographic material and the internet subscriber might not be the person who allegedly infringed the copyrights.
Judge J. Paul Oetken allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena for John Doe’s name and addresses, subject to safeguards. Verizon Fios must notify John Doe, who has 60 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously; the information cannot be released during that period or while a timely challenge is pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-07544
- James Oetken
- Sept. 8, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the unidentified defendant, identified in the caption as John Doe and associated with internet protocol address 72.80.23.7, distributed the company’s copyrighted movies in violation of the Copyright Act. The movies contained pornographic material. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to obtain expedited discovery—information requested before the usual discovery schedule—from Verizon Fios to learn John Doe’s name and addresses.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause for allowing some expedited discovery. Without a subpoena ordered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the court concluded that Verizon Fios was effectively prohibited by federal law from disclosing John Doe’s identity to Strike 3 Holdings. The court also emphasized that the owner of an internet connection is not necessarily the person who allegedly infringed a copyright. Someone else with access to the connection, such as a child, neighbor, or houseguest, could have been responsible.
The court determined that the proposed discovery order lacked adequate safeguards for John Doe. It noted the risk that a person could be falsely identified, forced to defend against unsupported allegations, or pressured into an unjust settlement. The sensitive subject matter—alleged downloading of a pornographic movie—heightened the risk of embarrassment and coercion.
Order
The court allowed Strike 3 Holdings to immediately serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 Holdings must attach the order to the subpoena and immediately serve the order on Verizon Fios. Verizon Fios must then serve the order on John Doe by a reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to his last known address.
John Doe has 60 days from service of the order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Verizon Fios may not disclose identifying information before that 60-day period ends. If John Doe or Verizon Fios files a motion to quash, Verizon Fios may not disclose the information until the court resolves the issues and orders disclosure to resume.
If no challenge is filed within 60 days, Verizon Fios has 10 days to provide the subpoenaed information. Verizon Fios must preserve the information while any timely motion to quash is pending. It may not charge a fee in advance, although it may later provide Strike 3 Holdings with a billing summary and cost report. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 7. The order did not decide whether John Doe infringed Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrights.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.