Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
337 F.Supp.3d 246 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third-party subpoena served on an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to identify an anonymous 'John Doe' defendant in a copyright infringement case will not be quashed on grounds of undue burden or a general denial of liability, as the identifying information is necessary for the plaintiff to advance its claim.
Facts:
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is an adult film company that produces and distributes copyrighted motion pictures ('the Works').
- Strike 3's Works are often illegally downloaded and distributed using the BitTorrent file-sharing network.
- Plaintiff used an investigator to discover that an individual using the IP address 69.204.6.161 was downloading and distributing its Works via BitTorrent.
- Plaintiff knew the IP address and its general location but did not know the name or physical address of the subscriber assigned to that IP address.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an anonymous 'John Doe' defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York for copyright infringement.
- Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Defendant's Internet Service Provider (ISP) to discover Defendant's identity.
- The court granted Plaintiff's motion and issued a Protective Order authorizing the subpoena.
- After being notified by the ISP, Defendant filed a motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the court's prior order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a third-party subpoena served on an Internet Service Provider to identify a 'John Doe' defendant accused of copyright infringement warrant being quashed when the plaintiff needs the defendant's identity to serve process and proceed with the litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Wolford, J.
No, a third-party subpoena served on an Internet Service Provider to identify a 'John Doe' defendant does not warrant being quashed under these circumstances. The court denied the motion to quash, finding that while the defendant has standing to challenge the subpoena due to a privacy interest, their arguments fail. The court reasoned that the 'undue burden' of complying with the subpoena falls on the non-party ISP, not the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant's arguments attacking the merits of the complaint—such as claiming they did not commit the infringement or that the copyrighted works might be obscene—are premature defenses and not a proper basis for quashing a subpoena at the discovery stage. The court concluded that the subpoenaed information is essential for the plaintiff to advance its claim, as it cannot serve process and pursue the litigation without learning the defendant's identity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the standard procedure in 'John Doe' copyright infringement cases, affirming that plaintiffs can use Rule 45 subpoenas to unmask anonymous infringers. It clarifies that a defendant's early-stage defenses on the merits, like denying liability, are insufficient to block discovery necessary to simply identify them. The ruling establishes a high bar for quashing such subpoenas, prioritizing the plaintiff's right to pursue its claim over a defendant's qualified right to online anonymity when a prima facie case of infringement has been presented. This solidifies a key tool for copyright holders combatting online piracy and shows that courts will not entertain substantive defenses before the defendant has even been properly named and served.
