Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-02508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Oetken allowed limited subpoena discovery to identify the anonymous defendant, with protections against premature disclosure.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum, but John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymous litigation. Spectrum must preserve the information and cannot disclose it before the challenge period or while a timely challenge is pending.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified person, called John Doe, alleging that the person distributed its copyrighted pornographic movies. Strike 3 asked to obtain the subscriber’s name and addresses from Internet provider Spectrum.
The court found good cause for immediate discovery because Strike 3 could not identify or serve John Doe without a subpoena. But it required safeguards because the subscriber might not be the actual infringer and the allegations involved sensitive material that could lead to pressure to settle.
Judge Oetken ordered Spectrum to respond to a subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and addresses, but barred disclosure for 60 days and allowed John Doe or Spectrum to challenge the subpoena or request anonymous litigation. The information could be used only for purposes stated in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02508
- James Oetken
- May 21, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified defendant, captioned as John Doe and associated with Internet Protocol address 68.174.7.122, distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies in violation of the Copyright Act. The opinion states that the movies contain pornographic material. Strike 3 moved for permission to take expedited discovery—discovery taken before the usual schedule—from Spectrum, the Internet Service Provider, to obtain John Doe’s name and address.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause to allow some expedited discovery. Without a court-ordered subpoena, the court concluded that Spectrum was effectively barred from disclosing John Doe’s identity under the federal cable-operator privacy statute. The court also emphasized that an Internet Protocol address does not necessarily identify the person who committed the alleged infringement. Someone else with access to the connection, such as a child, neighbor, or houseguest, could have been responsible.
The court found that this created a real risk that the subscriber could be wrongly identified and forced to defend against an unwarranted claim or pressured into an unjust settlement. It said that risk was greater because the allegations involved downloading pornographic movies and could cause embarrassment if made public. The court therefore concluded that Strike 3’s proposed order did not adequately protect John Doe.
Order
The court allowed Strike 3 to conduct immediate discovery from Spectrum through a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking John Doe’s name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 had to attach the court’s order to the subpoena, and both Strike 3 and Spectrum had to provide John Doe with a copy of the order.
John Doe had 60 days after service of the order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Spectrum could not disclose identifying information to Strike 3 before that period ended. If John Doe or Spectrum filed a challenge, Spectrum could not disclose the information until the court addressed the challenge and ordered disclosure to resume.
If no challenge was filed within 60 days, Spectrum would have 10 days to provide the subpoenaed information. Spectrum also had to preserve the information while any timely challenge was pending. Any information disclosed could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. The Clerk was directed to close the docket entry for Strike 3’s motion. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered the order on May 21, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.