Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
1:19-cv-11466
S.D.N.Y.Jan 17, 2020Background
- Strike 3 Holdings operates adult-film websites and owns the asserted copyrighted works.
- Plaintiff alleges large-scale unauthorized distribution of its films via BitTorrent.
- Plaintiff used forensic software (VXN Scan) to record dates/times and an IP address linked to alleged downloads.
- Plaintiff cannot identify the subscriber from the IP; only the ISP (Spectrum) can match the IP and timestamp to a subscriber account.
- Strike 3 moved ex parte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Spectrum pre-Rule 26(f) to learn John Doe’s name and addresses.
- Court granted the request but imposed limits and a protective/notice procedure (60-day notice to Doe, limits on disclosure, and prohibition on obtaining emails/phone numbers).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expedited discovery before Rule 26(f) is appropriate | Good cause: prima facie infringement, need to identify Doe to advance suit, ISP is only source | (Implied) privacy concerns and risk of abuse/overbroad discovery | Granted: court applied flexible good-cause standard and allowed subpoena |
| Whether plaintiff made a prima facie copyright-infringement showing | Alleged ownership of registered copyrights and detailed copying allegations (IP, timestamps, technology) | (Implied) risk of false positives/insufficient identification | Court found prima facie case established |
| Scope/specificity of requested discovery | Requests only Doe’s true name and current/permanent address to effect service | (Implied) request could be overbroad if it sought more contact info | Court limited subpoena to name and addresses; barred requests for emails/telephone numbers |
| Privacy expectations and need for protective measures | Minimal expectation of privacy for ISP subscribers sharing copyrighted files; need to preserve logs and prevent loss | Doe may suffer embarrassment; risk of false identification | Court found minimal privacy expectation, but ordered protective procedures: subpoena notice to Doe, 60-day window to move to quash or seek anonymity, stay on ISP disclosure until resolved, preservation requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (discusses BitTorrent peer-to-peer mechanics and expedited discovery to identify Doe defendants)
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (identifies principal factors for expedited discovery to identify anonymous online infringers)
- Sony Music Ent. Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (applies expedited-discovery factors in online infringement context)
- Ayyash v. Bank AlMadina, 233 F.R.D. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (ex parte expedited discovery requires careful scrutiny)
- Int'l Swaps & Derivatives Ass'n v. Socratek, 712 F. Supp. 2d 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (sets out prima facie copyright-infringement elements)
- Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2003) (ownership and unauthorized copying as infringement elements)
- Next Phase Distribution, Inc. v. John Does 1-27, 284 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (ISPs can match IPs/timestamps to subscriber identities)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Does 1-30, 284 F.R.D. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (BitTorrent users largely anonymous; subpoenas to ISPs necessary to identify subscribers)
- BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018) (only ISPs can match IP addresses to subscriber identities)