Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement action against John Doe, who was identified only through the alleged internet protocol address 24.168.24.59. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the name and address associated with the internet address.

Reasoning

Rule 26(d) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, but the court may authorize expedited discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with especially careful review because Strike 3 sought the discovery before the conference and without advance notice to the defendant. The court found good cause, noting that Strike 3 sought only the defendant’s name and address and did not oppose an appropriate protective order. The court also noted privacy concerns related to the copyrighted material and the possibility that an internet service provider could identify the wrong person.

The court expressly stated that the order did not decide the merits of any future motion to challenge, cancel, or modify the subpoena.

Order

The court GRANTED Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum before the Rule 26(f) conference. John Doe could proceed anonymously unless the court ordered otherwise. Strike 3 could immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Spectrum seeking only the defendant’s name and address connected to IP address 24.168.24.59. It could not subpoena the defendant’s telephone number or email address. The order also permitted a similar subpoena to another internet service provider identified through the discovery.

Spectrum had 60 days after service to make a reasonable effort to identify the defendant and provide the defendant with the subpoena, the order, and the required notice. The defendant had 60 days after receiving those materials to challenge the subpoena, including by asking the court to cancel or modify it. Spectrum could not release information during that period, or while a timely challenge remained unresolved. If there was no challenge, Spectrum had 10 days to produce responsive information. The order required Spectrum to preserve the information, limited its use to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint, and barred disclosure to anyone other than Strike 3 and its counsel without further court permission.

Strike 3 could not initiate settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission, although it could participate if the defendant initiated discussions. Strike 3 also had to file a status letter by May 20, 2024. The clerk was directed to terminate Docket No. 6.