Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DOE
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-01705
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Garnett allowed early discovery so Strike 3 could subpoena an internet provider for the defendant’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from the internet service provider, subject to the protective order. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge the subpoena within the specified 60-day period. The internet service provider must notify John Doe, preserve the information, and withhold disclosure during the challenge period or while a motion is pending.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 sued an unidentified defendant, known by an internet protocol address, for alleged copyright infringement. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties’ required initial discovery meeting to obtain the defendant’s name and address.
The court granted the motion subject to a protective order. The defendant may remain anonymous, and the subpoena may seek only the name and address associated with the specified internet protocol address—not a telephone number or email address. The internet service provider must notify the defendant, who has 60 days to challenge the subpoena; the provider cannot disclose the information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett also barred Strike 3 from initiating settlement discussions before serving the complaint without court permission, limited any disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit, adjourned the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date, and directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by July 20, 2024.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DOE · No. 1:24-cv-01705
- Garnett
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, whose identity was not known to Strike 3. The complaint identified the defendant through the alleged internet protocol address 173.77.115.90. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider, Verizon Fios, before the parties held the conference generally required before discovery begins under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
The requested discovery sought the name and address associated with the internet protocol address. The court applied a flexible standard requiring reasonableness and good cause, with especially careful review because Strike 3 sought expedited discovery without first giving the defendant notice. The court found good cause, noting that the requested information was limited and that Strike 3 appeared unable to identify or serve the defendant without it. The court also noted Strike 3’s agreement to an appropriate protective order because of privacy concerns and the risk of an internet service provider falsely identifying a subscriber.
Ruling and protective order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion subject to the protective order. The order provides:
- John Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise. - Strike 3 may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the internet service provider seeking only the defendant’s name and address associated with the internet protocol address in the complaint. Strike 3 may not subpoena the defendant’s telephone number or email address. - The subpoena must include the court’s order and the attached notice to the defendant. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet service provider identified as providing internet services to the defendant. - The internet service provider must notify the defendant within 60 days after being served with the subpoena and order. - The defendant has 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The internet service provider may not disclose the information before that period ends, or while a motion by the defendant or provider is pending. - If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to produce the responsive information. The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. - 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. - Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights as described in the complaint. - An internet service provider may not charge in advance for producing the information and must provide a billing summary and cost report if it chooses to charge production costs.
The court adjourned the previously scheduled initial pretrial conference without setting a new date, directed Strike 3 to file a status letter by July 20, 2024, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open letter-motion at Docket Number 7.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.