Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rearden allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Doe’s internet provider for identifying information, subject to notice and challenge procedures.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, and Optimum Online. The order permits Strike 3 to seek Doe’s identifying information while giving Doe and the provider time to challenge the subpoena and limiting how disclosed information may be used.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, alleging that Doe illegally downloaded or distributed copyrighted films. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Doe’s internet provider, Optimum Online, to learn Doe’s name and address so the lawsuit could be served.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient initial basis for its copyright claim, needed Doe’s identity to serve the lawsuit, and had no other way to identify Doe. The court also ordered protections because the provider might identify the wrong person. The subpoena could seek Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but not email addresses or telephone numbers.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted Strike 3’s motion. Optimum Online must notify Doe and withhold the information for 30 days, during which Doe or the provider may challenge the subpoena or request anonymous proceedings. The order also limits Strike 3’s use of any information it receives to protecting its rights in the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-01693
- Rearden
- Mar. 26, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, a subscriber associated with IP address 47.17.208.241, illegally downloaded or distributed copyrighted films. Because Strike 3 did not know Doe’s name or address, it asked for permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Optimum Online, the identified internet service provider. The subpoena would seek information needed to identify Doe before the usual Rule 26(f) conference, an early case-management meeting between the parties.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It determined that Strike 3 had established a prima facie claim, meaning an initially sufficient claim, for copyright infringement; that Strike 3 needed Doe’s identity to serve the lawsuit; and that Strike 3 had no alternative way to determine Doe’s identity. The court also found good cause for a protective order because of the risk that the subpoena could lead to a false identification and cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve the third-party subpoena on Optimum Online. Strike 3 may seek Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but may not seek email addresses or telephone numbers through this subpoena.
Optimum Online must serve Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice within 60 days after the subpoena is served on the provider. Under the order, Doe has 30 days after service of the subpoena and order to challenge the subpoena, including by moving to quash or modify it, or to ask to litigate anonymously. Optimum Online may not disclose identifying information during that 30-day period. If Doe or Optimum Online timely files a motion to quash, disclosure must wait until the court resolves the motion and orders the provider to resume production. If no challenge is filed during the 30-day period, Optimum Online has 10 days to produce responsive information.
Optimum Online must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely motion to quash is pending, confer with Strike 3 about production costs, and may not charge those costs in advance. Strike 3 must serve the order and subpoena on Optimum Online. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights as stated in its complaint. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 10.
Important timing note
The attached notice says that a motion to quash or modify must be filed within 60 days after Doe receives notice from Optimum Online. The order itself states that Doe has 30 days after service of the subpoena and order. The opinion contains this apparent inconsistency; the order’s numbered provisions state the 30-day challenge period.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.