Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-09572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Furman allowed an expedited subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant through the defendant’s Internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, and the Internet service provider receiving the subpoena are affected. Doe may remain anonymous, may challenge the subpoena within the specified 60-day period, and may proceed without a lawyer. The provider must preserve information and follow the notice and disclosure limits.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that copyrighted material was illegally downloaded or distributed. The company asked to subpoena Doe’s Internet service provider before the usual early-case conference to learn Doe’s identity.
The court granted permission to issue the expedited subpoena, but barred the company from seeking Doe’s email address or telephone number through it. Doe may remain anonymous unless the court orders otherwise, and the company may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint unless the court permits it.
Judge Furman gave Doe 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena, and the provider may not disclose identifying information before that deadline or while a timely challenge is pending. The company must provide periodic case updates, and it has 45 days after receiving information from the provider to serve Doe with the summons and complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-09572
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 16, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a lawsuit against John Doe, identified in the caption by the Internet Protocol address 151.204.156.54. The notice attached to the order states that Strike 3 Holdings claims Doe illegally downloaded or distributed copyrighted material. The opinion does not decide whether that claim is true.
On November 15, 2023, Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Doe’s Internet service provider before the conference generally required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requested discovery was intended to identify Doe. The court relied substantially on its reasoning in Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-27, No. 12-CV-3873 (JMF), 2012 WL 2036035 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012).
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Strike 3 Holdings’ motion for leave to serve the expedited subpoena. The subpoena may seek Doe’s identity, but it may not seek Doe’s email address or telephone number. The court also ordered that Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court later orders otherwise.
The court prohibited Strike 3 Holdings from initiating settlement discussions before serving the complaint unless it obtains permission from the court. If Doe initiates settlement discussions, Strike 3 Holdings may participate and settle the case.
Notice and challenge period
The Internet service provider must, within 60 days after being served with the subpoena, give Doe a copy of the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice. Doe then has 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The provider may not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that period expires. If Doe or the provider files such a motion, disclosure must wait until the court resolves the issues and orders the provider to resume producing the requested information.
The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. It must confer with Strike 3 Holdings and may not charge a fee in advance of producing the information. If it charges production costs, it must provide a billing summary and cost report. Any information disclosed in response to the subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3 Holdings’ rights asserted in the complaint.
Other directives and disposition
The court extended Strike 3 Holdings’ deadline to serve the summons and complaint to 45 days after receiving information from the provider. Every 60 days, until Doe answers or otherwise responds to the complaint, Strike 3 Holdings must submit a letter of no more than two pages describing its efforts to obtain the information and serve Doe. The court warned that failing to submit those letters on time may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The Clerk was directed to terminate Docket No. 7. The order grants expedited discovery and establishes procedures for protecting Doe’s identity; it does not resolve the underlying copyright allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.