Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-07546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Vyskocil allowed early discovery to identify the anonymous defendant in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings may obtain identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios, subject to the order’s limits on service and use of the information.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required discovery conference. The company sought the name and address of John Doe, the subscriber associated with an internet address that it linked to alleged unauthorized sharing of its copyrighted works.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a plausible initial copyright-infringement claim and that its request was limited to identifying information. The court also found no practical alternative way to identify Doe, said the information was needed to continue the case, and concluded that the subscriber’s privacy interest was limited in these circumstances.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Strike 3’s motion and allowed it to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena for Doe’s name and address. Strike 3 must provide Verizon Fios with a copy of the order, may use the information only to prosecute this case, and must comply with an additional federal privacy requirement if Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-07546
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 12, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 71.249.111.188, for alleged copyright infringement. Strike 3 alleged that Doe used the BitTorrent file-sharing network to download and distribute its copyrighted works. Because Doe’s identity was not known, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve Verizon Fios, an internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties held their required discovery conference.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents discovery before the parties’ required conference, but permits a court to authorize earlier discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness and good-cause standard and considered five factors used in infringement cases.
First, the court found that Strike 3 had made a prima facie showing—an initial showing sufficient to support the claim at this stage—of copyright infringement. Strike 3 identified the copyrighted works and provided allegations and supporting declarations describing the alleged copying, including dates and times. Second, the requested discovery was specific because it sought only Doe’s name and permanent address.
Third, the court found no other known way for Strike 3 to identify Doe reliably. It stated that identification required matching the alleged infringement date and time with subscriber-log information held by the internet service provider. Fourth, the information was necessary because Strike 3 could not identify or serve Doe without it, and the court noted that routine deletion by internet service providers could result in loss of the information. Fifth, the court concluded that internet subscribers have only a minimal expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material under the circumstances described.
Ruling
The court granted Strike 3’s motion. It ordered that Strike 3 may serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of the defendant to whom Verizon Fios assigned the Internet Protocol address alleged in the complaint. Strike 3 must serve Verizon Fios with a copy of the order at the same time as the subpoena. If Verizon Fios is 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 obtained through the subpoena only to prosecute its claims in this case. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.