Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 27, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-00638
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Engelmayer allowed limited expedited discovery, with safeguards, to identify the defendant in a copyright case.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, John Doe, and Astound Broadband LLC are directly affected. Strike 3 may seek Doe’s identifying information; Doe may challenge or seek anonymous treatment of the subpoena; and Astound must provide notice, preserve information, and comply with the subpoena if disclosure is ultimately required.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3 Holdings’ allegations that an unidentified person downloaded and shared 34 of its movies, which contain pornographic material. Strike 3 asked to obtain the person’s identity from Internet Service Provider Astound Broadband LLC.

The court allowed Strike 3 to immediately subpoena Astound for John Doe’s name and current and permanent address. Astound must notify Doe, and Doe will have 60 days after receiving notice to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. Astound cannot disclose the identifying information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found good cause for this limited discovery but added safeguards because the internet-account holder might not be the alleged infringer and could face pressure to settle or public association with pornographic films. The order did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-00638
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Feb. 27, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings sued an unidentified defendant, called John Doe, alleging that Doe downloaded and distributed 34 of Strike 3’s motion pictures. The opinion states that the movies contain pornographic material. Strike 3 sought permission to take expedited discovery—information obtained before the usual discovery schedule—from third-party Internet Service Provider Astound Broadband LLC to learn Doe’s name and physical address.

Court’s reasoning

The court found good cause for some expedited discovery because Strike 3 could not identify Doe or serve the complaint without information from Astound. The court explained that federal law generally restricted Astound, as a cable operator, from disclosing Doe’s identity without a court-ordered subpoena.

The court also recognized that the person who owns an internet address associated with a download may not be the person who infringed the copyright. It further noted the risk that an incorrectly identified defendant could feel pressured to settle to avoid being publicly linked to pornographic films. The court therefore added protections to Strike 3’s proposed order.

Order

The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Astound immediately with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking John Doe’s name and current and permanent address. The order must accompany the subpoena. Strike 3 must promptly serve the order on Astound, and Astound must serve it on Doe by a reasonable method.

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 request permission to litigate anonymously. Astound may not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that period expires. If Doe or Astound files a timely motion, Astound must preserve the information and may not disclose it until the court resolves the issues and directs Astound to proceed.

If no challenge is filed within 60 days, Astound has 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. The court also addressed Astound’s production costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the pending motion at Docket 6.

Disposition and classification

The court granted Strike 3’s request for immediate third-party discovery, subject to the stated safeguards. The order did not determine whether Doe infringed any copyright. This is a procedural order because it concerns discovery needed to identify a defendant rather than the merits of the copyright allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.