Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Sidney Stein
- 1:23-cv-09575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Stein granted a subpoena request, with protections allowing the unknown defendant to challenge disclosure.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may pursue limited discovery from Verizon Internet Services. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge the subpoena within the specified deadlines. Verizon must preserve the information and withhold it while a timely challenge is pending.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 alleged that an unknown defendant used the internet address 70.23.11.114 to infringe its copyrights. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Internet Services for the name and address associated with that address before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court found good cause to allow the subpoena before that conference and allowed the defendant to remain identified as John Doe. The subpoena may seek only the defendant’s name and address, not a telephone number or email address.
Judge Stein granted the request subject to protections: Verizon must notify the defendant, the defendant has 60 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to remain anonymous, and Verizon may not disclose information while a timely challenge is pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-09575
- Sidney Stein
- Nov. 21, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement lawsuit against John Doe, who was identified only by the alleged internet protocol address 70.23.11.114. Strike 3 alleged that this address was used to infringe its copyrights. Because the defendant’s name was unknown, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Internet Services, the identified internet service provider, to obtain the name and address associated with the internet address. Strike 3 also asked to serve the subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on reasoning in other opinions from the Southern District of New York and found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court also recognized a substantial risk that an internet-address identification could be incorrect and could cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. For that reason, the court issued a protective order along with permission to serve the subpoena.
Ruling and Protective Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion subject to the protective order. John Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only the defendant’s name and address from Verizon, and may serve a similar subpoena on another internet service provider identified through that process. The subpoena must include the order and a notice to the defendant.
Verizon must notify the defendant within 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order. The defendant then has 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to cancel or change it. Verizon may not disclose the information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending. If no challenge is filed, Verizon has 10 additional days to provide the responsive information. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit.
Strike 3 may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although it may participate if the defendant initiates discussions. The defendant may also remain anonymous without filing a challenge, provided the defendant submits the required notice. Judge Sidney H. Stein signed the order on November 21, 2023.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.