Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. v. John Doe, Subscriber assigned IP address 73.175.74.146
3:21-cv-01587
| M.D. Penn. | Jun 10, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe identified only by IP address for alleged copyright infringement via BitTorrent, filing the complaint on Sept. 14, 2021.
- Court granted limited early discovery to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the defendant's ISP to obtain the subscriber’s name and address prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.
- Defendant (through counsel) moved to quash the ISP subpoena as unduly burdensome or, alternatively, for a protective order permitting anonymous litigation; the ISP had not yet disclosed the subscriber information.
- Court found the subpoena sought only identifying information within the scope of discovery and that the defendant lacked standing to quash a third-party subpoena on undue-burden grounds.
- Motion to quash denied; ISP ordered to disclose identifying information within 14 days. Defendant granted temporary leave to proceed anonymously; plaintiff must file an unredacted amended complaint under seal and a redacted public copy, and defendant must move to proceed anonymously with his Rule 12 response.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to quash third-party subpoena | Subpoena is proper to identify subscriber; early discovery justified | Sub. lacks standing to challenge subpoena because it burdens him emotionally/financially and could be misattributed | Defendant lacks standing to quash on undue-burden grounds; motion denied |
| Scope/propriety of ISP subpoena for name/address | Only ISP can match IP to subscriber; request limited to identity and address; within Rule 26 scope | Identification could be unreliable (IP masking, VPN, absent user) and subpoena is overbroad because it ties to a single recent transaction | Subpoena permissible; identity-only disclosure is proper at this stage; merits arguments are premature |
| Anonymity / proceeding as Doe | Early discovery sought to enable service and litigation; plaintiff should be able to name the defendant once identified | Requests temporary or permanent anonymity to protect privacy and avoid prejudice | Temporary anonymity granted as to current pleadings; plaintiff to file unredacted amended complaint under seal and defendant must timely move to proceed anonymously with Rule 12 response |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Cosby, 314 F.R.D. 164 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (discussing standing to quash third-party subpoenas)
- BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018) (only ISP can match IP addresses to subscriber identities)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 370 F. Supp. 3d 478 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (identity disclosure from ISP falls within permissible discovery)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 964 F.3d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (denying closure of courthouse doors where discovery may show subscriber is not the infringer)
- First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-76, 276 F.R.D. 254 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (overview of BitTorrent and precedent permitting identification discovery)
- Blakeslee v. Clinton Cty., [citation="336 Fed. App'x 248"] (3d Cir. 2009) (discovery to identify Doe defendants is permissible)
- W. Coast Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-5829, 275 F.R.D. 9 (D.D.C. 2011) (general denials of liability do not justify quashing identification subpoenas)