Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 68.82.141.39
370 F. Supp. 3d 478
| E.D. Pa. | 2019Background
- Strike 3 Holdings sued a John Doe identified only by IP address for alleged BitTorrent-based copyright infringement of 31 adult films.
- Strike 3 lacked the subscriber's name/address and moved ex parte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) for leave to subpoena the ISP (Comcast) to obtain that information; the court granted the motion.
- Defendant moved to reconsider that ruling (arguing Strike 3 is a "copyright troll" and citing a D.D.C. decision denying a similar subpoena) or, alternatively, for a protective order and for a more definite statement identifying each film title.
- Strike 3 provided file hashes, source websites, and copyright registration numbers in Exhibit A; titles were initially omitted to avoid embarrassment but later supplied.
- The court considered whether early discovery of the subscriber identity was proper, whether a protective order should limit disclosure, and whether the complaint was too vague to respond to.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ex parte pre-Rule 26(f) subpoena of ISP identifying a Doe defendant is permissible | Strike 3: Necessary to identify and serve defendant; information is discoverable and not privileged | Doe: Strike 3 is a copyright-trolling plaintiff; privacy outweighs discovery; cited D.D.C. denial | Court: Permitted. Subpoena limited to name/address is discoverable; no special bar to early discovery here. |
| Whether the court should reconsider its prior grant (change of law, new evidence, or clear error) | Strike 3: No basis for reconsideration; earlier order correct | Doe: Points to intervening D.D.C. decision and alleged abusive litigation tactics | Court: Denied reconsideration — defendant failed to meet the narrow grounds for reconsideration. |
| Whether a protective order should be entered to shield Doe's identity from public disclosure | Strike 3: Agreed to protective order to prevent public disclosure | Doe: Sought protection from embarrassment and possible misidentification | Court: Granted limited protective relief — defendant may remain "John Doe" during litigation absent further order. |
| Whether the complaint requires a more definite statement (titles of works) | Strike 3: Provided hashes, sites, and registration numbers; omission of titles was to avoid embarrassment; later supplied titles | Doe: Needs titles to investigate abandonment/affirmative defenses | Court: Denied as moot — complaint sufficiently specific and plaintiff supplied titles in amended Exhibit A. |
Key Cases Cited
- Max's Seafood Cafe by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir.) (standards for reconsideration motions)
- Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397 (3d Cir.) (scope of reconsideration relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (obscenity test)
- United States v. Various Articles of Merch., 230 F.3d 649 (3d Cir.) (application of Miller test)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 351 F. Supp. 3d 160 (D.D.C.) (court denying ex parte subpoena; criticized as copyright-trolling)
- Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does, 950 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Pa.) (discussing "copyright troll" characterization)