Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe
964 F.3d 1203
| D.C. Cir. | 2020Background
- Strike 3, a producer/distributor of adult films, used third-party forensic software and geolocation to link IP address 73.180.154.14 to 22 BitTorrent distributions of its copyrighted films over ~1 year.
- Strike 3 sued the anonymous IP-subscriber in D.D.C., filed a Rule 26(d)(1) motion for leave to subpoena Comcast to learn the subscriber’s identity, and offered a protective order to permit anonymity.
- The district court denied the discovery motion, applying a multi-factor balancing test (Arista Records), placed heavy weight on the pornographic nature of the works and the risk of misidentification, characterized Strike 3 as a “copyright troll,” and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
- Strike 3 appealed; the D.C. Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and concluded the district court relied on improper factors and legal errors in three respects.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed: (1) holding that the content of the copyrighted works is irrelevant to a Rule 26(d)(1) subpoena-to-identify analysis; (2) rejecting the district court’s view that identifying the subscriber could not plausibly support an infringement claim; and (3) finding the district court drew unsupported adverse inferences about Strike 3’s motives from its litigation volume.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying leave under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) to subpoena ISP for subscriber ID | Strike 3: good cause/proportionality — discovery is necessary to identify defendant and proceed; protective order can prevent stigma | Court/Amicus: privacy interests, risk of misidentification, and Strike 3’s litigation practices outweigh need for discovery | Reversed — district court abused discretion; discovery should have been allowed under appropriate standards |
| Whether the pornographic content of the works is a relevant factor in the Rule 26(d)(1) analysis | Strike 3: content is irrelevant; copyright protections and discovery rights do not depend on the subject matter | Court/Amicus: privacy interests are heightened because of stigmatizing content, so content should weigh against disclosure | Reversed — content is per se irrelevant to entitlement to discovery to identify an alleged infringer |
| Whether identifying the subscriber would be insufficient to state a plausible infringement claim | Court/Amicus: subscriber status alone often insufficient; alternative explanations (other users) make claim implausible without further discovery | Strike 3: identifying subscriber is threshold step; plausibility assessed by taking allegations as true and drawing inferences favoring plaintiff | Reversed — court erred by conflating discovery and Rule 12(b)(6); complaint’s allegations made a plausible claim pending discovery |
| Whether the district court permissibly inferred improper motive from Strike 3’s litigation history | Court/Amicus: volume/settlement patterns indicate abusive, coercive litigation tactics | Strike 3: high litigation volume reflects scale of piracy and is not proof of bad motive; settlements are legitimate | Reversed — district court relied on extra-record, unsupported negative inferences and failed to draw reasonable inferences for plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (discussing limits on Rule 26(d)(1) discovery for unidentified defendants)
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (multi-factor balancing framework used by some courts for John Doe discovery)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard and inference-drawing at Rule 12(b)(6) stage)
- Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (courts must draw all reasonable inferences for plaintiff at pleading stage)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (standard for overturning district court’s exercise of discretion)
- United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326 (1988) (judicial discretion must be guided by sound legal principles)
- Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2018) (after discovery, subscriber status alone insufficient where evidence showed shared/public access)
- Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) (copyright owner has protectable property interest enforceable in court)