Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-05438
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Vyskocil authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Spectrum for Doe’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information about John Doe from Spectrum through a subpoena. Spectrum must follow the order’s requirements, and the disclosed information may be used only to prosecute this case.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, whose internet address was linked to alleged unauthorized copying of Strike 3’s copyrighted works. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet provider, before the usual early case conference to learn Doe’s identity.
The court found that Strike 3 had sufficiently shown alleged copyright infringement, requested only specific identifying information, had no practical alternative way to identify Doe, needed the information to continue the case, and that Doe had only a limited privacy interest in sharing copyrighted material. The court also noted that the information could be lost through routine deletion of provider records.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Strike 3’s motion. The order allows Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a subpoena for Doe’s name and address, requires Strike 3 to provide Spectrum a copy of the order, limits use of the information to prosecuting this case, and directs the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-05438
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 69.202.139.1. Strike 3 alleged that Doe used the BitTorrent file-sharing network to download, copy, and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted works. Because Strike 3 did not know Doe’s identity, it asked for permission to serve Spectrum, the internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents parties from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, unless a court authorizes earlier discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard and considered five factors used in infringement cases: whether the plaintiff made an initial showing of infringement, whether the request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was necessary to advance the claim, and the defendant’s expectation of privacy.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Strike 3 satisfied each factor. First, Strike 3 identified the copyrighted works and provided allegations and supporting declarations describing the alleged copying, including the dates and times of the alleged infringement. Second, Strike 3 sought only Doe’s true name and permanent address. Third, the court found no other reliable way to identify Doe because BitTorrent provides substantial anonymity and identification required matching the alleged infringement’s date and time with Spectrum’s subscriber records. Fourth, without the subpoena, Strike 3 would be unable to identify and serve Doe, and the information could be lost through routine deletion of provider records. Finally, the court found that internet subscribers have a minimal expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for early discovery. The order permits Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of the defendant to whom Spectrum assigned the relevant Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 must serve Spectrum with a copy of the order at the same time as the subpoena. If Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Strike 3 may use information disclosed through the subpoena only to prosecute its claims in this case. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 6. The order did not decide whether Doe committed copyright infringement.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.