Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-02505
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Furman granted expedited discovery from an internet provider, with privacy protections for the anonymous defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, and the internet service provider receiving the subpoena are affected. Strike 3 may seek the defendant’s identity, while John Doe receives notice, time to challenge the subpoena, and continued public anonymity unless the court orders otherwise. The provider must preserve information and follow the order’s disclosure and cost procedures.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked to obtain the identity of the person linked to an Internet Protocol address from that person’s internet provider before the parties’ required case-planning conference. The lawsuit concerns alleged illegal downloading or distribution of copyrighted material, but the order did not decide whether those allegations were true.
The court allowed Strike 3 to serve the provider with an expedited subpoena, but not to seek the defendant’s email address or telephone number. The defendant may remain publicly anonymous as John Doe unless the court orders otherwise. The provider must give the defendant notice, and the defendant has 60 days to challenge the subpoena.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also barred Strike 3 from starting settlement discussions before serving the complaint unless the court permits it, required the provider to preserve disputed information, and limited any disclosed information to protecting Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit. The court extended the deadline for serving the complaint and required Strike 3 to submit status letters every 60 days.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02505
- Jesse Furman
- May 20, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 142.255.51.250. The opinion states that Strike 3 alleges the defendant illegally downloaded or distributed copyrighted material. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena—a legal demand for information—on the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties’ required conference under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena sought information that could identify the defendant.
Court’s analysis and order
Relying substantially on its reasons in a prior related proceeding, the court found that Strike 3 satisfied the requirements for expedited discovery. It granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the subpoena on the provider to obtain the defendant’s identity. The court specifically prohibited Strike 3 from using that subpoena to obtain the defendant’s email address or telephone number.
The court identified substantial privacy concerns because of the nature of the copyrighted material at issue and the risk that the provider could identify the wrong person. It therefore ordered that the defendant could proceed anonymously as John Doe unless the court later ordered otherwise. Strike 3 could not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without permission from the court, although it could participate in and settle discussions initiated by the defendant.
Deadlines and protections
The provider has 60 days after being served with the subpoena to give the defendant the subpoena, the court’s order, and the required notice. The defendant then has 60 days after receiving the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The provider may not disclose identifying information before that period ends. If the defendant or provider files such a motion, disclosure must wait until the court resolves the issue and directs the provider to resume production.
The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. It must confer with Strike 3 and may not charge costs before providing the requested information; if it charges production costs, it must provide Strike 3 with a billing summary and cost report. Any information disclosed under the subpoena may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint.
The court extended Strike 3’s deadline to serve the summons and complaint to 45 days after receiving information from the provider. Strike 3 must also submit a letter of no more than two pages every 60 days until the defendant answers or otherwise responds, describing its efforts to obtain the information and serve the defendant. The court warned that failing to submit the letters on time could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket. The order did not decide the merits of Strike 3’s copyright allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.