Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Subscriber Assigned IP Address

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2019 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedureearly discoveryprotective ordersmore definite statementcopyright infringementBitTorrentJohn Doe defendantISP subpoena

Facts

Strike 3 alleged that it owned copyrights or pending copyright registrations in adult motion pictures and that the defendant used BitTorrent to download and distribute thirty-one of those works without authorization. Strike 3 knew the alleged infringer only by IP address and therefore could not identify or serve the defendant without obtaining subscriber information from the ISP. The subpoena sought only the defendant's name and address. The defendant objected on grounds including privacy, alleged abusive litigation tactics by Strike 3, and the possibility that the works might be obscene, and also sought a more specific pleading identifying the film titles.

Issue

Whether the court should reconsider its order allowing early discovery of the Doe defendant's identity from the ISP, or instead limit disclosure through a protective order, and whether the complaint was so vague that Strike 3 had to provide a more definite statement. More specifically, the court considered whether privacy, embarrassment, possible obscenity, and accusations that Strike 3 was a copyright troll barred the ISP subpoena.

Rule

A motion for reconsideration may be granted only if there is an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Where a plaintiff has pleaded a plausible claim and cannot identify or serve a defendant without ISP subscriber information, a subpoena seeking only the defendant's name and address may be permitted because the information is relevant and discoverable; privacy and embarrassment concerns may be addressed through a Rule 26(c)(1) protective order rather than by denying discovery. A Rule 12(e) motion should be denied unless the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot reasonably prepare a response.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Harbor Films, LLC filed a copyright action in federal court in Philadelphia against an unknown person identified only by an IP address traced to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Before any Rule 26(f) conference, North Harbor moved ex parte for leave to subpoena the ISP for the subscriber's name and address, alleging it could not otherwise identify or serve the defendant and seeking no other information.

How should the court most likely rule on the request for early discovery?

Explanation. The majority opinion permits a Rule 26(d)(1) subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference when the plaintiff has pleaded a plausible claim, seeks only the defendant's name and address, and cannot otherwise identify and serve the defendant. The court rejected the idea that such basic identifying information is categorically protected from subpoena and emphasized that without it the action could not proceed.