Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-10534
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Engelmayer authorized limited expedited discovery from Verizon Fios to identify the unnamed defendant, with safeguards protecting Doe’s privacy.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information from Verizon Fios about John Doe, while John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymity; Verizon Fios must preserve the information and follow the court’s disclosure restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant, called John Doe, alleging that Doe downloaded and shared 30 of its pornographic motion pictures. Strike 3 asked the court for permission to seek Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios, the internet service provider associated with the identified internet address.
The court found good cause for expedited discovery because Strike 3 could not identify or serve Doe without a subpoena. But the court also noted that the person connected to an internet address may not be the actual infringer and that mistaken identification could pressure someone to settle to avoid being publicly linked to pornographic films.
Judge Engelmayer authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Doe’s name and current and permanent address, subject to notice and protections. Doe has 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously, and Verizon Fios may not disclose identifying information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-10534
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 21, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement complaint against an unidentified defendant, John Doe. The complaint alleges that Doe downloaded and distributed 30 of Strike 3’s motion pictures, which contain pornographic material. Strike 3 identified an internet address associated with the alleged activity and sought permission to take expedited discovery from Verizon Fios, the internet service provider connected to that address.
Strike 3 argued that it needed a subpoena to obtain Doe’s name and physical address. The court explained that Verizon Fios is treated as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), and that federal law generally prevents disclosure of the subscriber’s identity without a court-ordered subpoena. The court also recognized that the owner of an internet address may not be the person who committed the alleged infringement. It further noted the risk that an incorrectly identified person could feel pressured to settle to avoid being publicly associated with pornographic films.
Ruling
The court found good cause to allow some expedited discovery and ordered that Strike 3 may immediately serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking John Doe’s name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 must attach the court’s 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 mail or overnight delivery to Doe’s last known address.
John Doe has 60 days after service of the order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to cancel or change it, or to ask to litigate anonymously. Verizon Fios may not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that 60-day period expires. If Doe or Verizon Fios files a motion challenging the subpoena, Verizon Fios may not disclose the information until the court resolves the issue and directs Verizon Fios to resume production. If no challenge is filed within 60 days, Verizon Fios has 10 additional days to provide the requested information.
Verizon Fios must preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely challenge is pending. It must also confer with Strike 3 and may not charge Strike 3 in advance; any later charge must be supported by a billing summary and cost report. Strike 3 may use any information disclosed under the subpoena only to protect the rights described in its complaint. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 6.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.