Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-11224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Engelmayer allowed expedited discovery to identify the defendant in a copyright lawsuit, with safeguards before disclosure.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios. John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymous litigation, while Verizon Fios must preserve the information and withhold it during the protected periods.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings sued an unidentified defendant, called John Doe, alleging that Doe downloaded and shared 30 of its pornographic movies. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios, the internet service provider, for Doe’s name and physical address because it could not serve the lawsuit without that information.
The court allowed Strike 3 to immediately seek Doe’s name and current and permanent address through a subpoena. Verizon Fios must notify Doe, and Doe has 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. Verizon Fios may not disclose identifying information during that period or while a timely challenge is pending.
Judge Engelmayer also ordered Verizon Fios to preserve the information and limited any disclosed information to use in protecting Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit. The order resolved the pending discovery motion, but it did not decide whether Doe infringed copyright.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-11224
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings filed a complaint against an unidentified defendant, John Doe, alleging that Doe downloaded and distributed 30 of Strike 3’s motion pictures. The opinion states that the movies contain pornographic material. Strike 3 then sought permission to obtain expedited discovery—information requested before the normal discovery process—from Verizon Fios, the internet service provider associated with IP address 70.18.210.129. Strike 3 sought Doe’s name and physical address so it could identify and serve the defendant.
The court found good cause for limited expedited discovery. It reasoned that Strike 3 could not identify the Doe defendant without the subpoena and that Verizon Fios was effectively prohibited from disclosing the information without a court-ordered subpoena under the statutes cited in the opinion.
Safeguards for the Unidentified Defendant
The court recognized that the subscriber assigned an IP address may not be the person who allegedly infringed copyright. It also recognized the risk that an incorrectly identified person could feel pressured to settle to avoid being publicly associated with pornographic films. The court therefore added safeguards to the proposed discovery order.
Order
The court 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 provide Verizon Fios with a copy of the order, and Verizon Fios must provide a copy to John Doe using a reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service 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 motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Verizon Fios may not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that 60-day period ends. If Doe or Verizon Fios files a motion to quash, Verizon Fios must wait for the court to address the motion and order it to resume disclosure before providing the information.
If no challenge is filed during the 60-day period, Verizon Fios has 10 days to produce information responsive to the subpoena. Verizon Fios must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. It must also confer with Strike 3 about production costs and may not charge in advance. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights as stated in its complaint.
The order did not decide whether John Doe committed copyright infringement. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion pending at Docket 6. Judge Engelmayer thus authorized limited discovery subject to notice, a challenge period, preservation requirements, and limits on use of the information.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.