Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 74.101.124.102
1:24-cv-03065
E.D.N.YMay 18, 2024Background
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unknown defendant for alleged copyright infringement by uploading and downloading its copyrighted materials online.
- The defendant is only identified by their IP address, not by name.
- Strike 3 moved for expedited discovery to issue a subpoena to the relevant ISP to obtain the subscriber’s name and address.
- The court noted that the subscriber may not necessarily be the infringer—the alleged activity could be caused by someone else using the subscriber’s internet.
- The court addressed the risk of misidentification and the potential for abusive litigation tactics in such cases.
- The motion before the court was whether to allow Strike 3 to conduct early discovery to identify the defendant, and if so, under what protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to permit expedited discovery to the ISP | Early discovery is necessary to identify and serve the defendant | Not present (Doe not identified) | Granted, but with significant protective measures to prevent misuse |
| Protection of non-infringing subscribers | Limiting discovery will not prejudice Plaintiff’s enforcement | Risk of wrongly identifying a non-infringer | Protective procedures put in place, including notice and ability to contest subpoena |
| Proper scope of information from ISP | Needs subscriber’s name and address only | Not present | Only name and address permitted; phone and email excluded, and only for this case |
| Timing and notice for defendant to respond | Standard notice sufficient | Not present | 60-day period for Doe to contest or proceed anonymously before ISP inform Plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Sony Music Ent. Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (early discovery allowed to identify copyright defendants by IP)
- In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (subscriber not always actual infringer; protections needed)
- Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe 1, 288 F.R.D. 233 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (likelihood of misidentifying the true infringer requires court safeguards)