Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Filing 8

ORDER granting #6 Letter Motion for Discovery. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena on Verizon Internet Services ("Verizon"). See ECF Nos. 6-7. Plaintiff seeks to serve a subpoena to discover the name and address of a Verizon internet customer who allegedly downloaded Plaintiff's copyrighted works illegally. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion [ECF No. 7], Plaintiff has established good cause to be permitted to serve a subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference in this case. See Arista Records LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) (describing the "appropriate general standard" for expedited discovery). Accordingly, and for the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED; as further set forth herein. Plaintiff may serve Verizon with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of Defendant, to whom Verizon assigned the IP address in the Complaint. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this order on Verizon at the same time it serves the subpoena. To the extent Verizon is a "cable operator" pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 522(5), it shall comply with 47 U.S.C. section 551(c)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed as a result of the anticipated subpoena to prosecute its claims in this action. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 2/16/2021) (mro)

Case 1:21-cv-00261-MKV Document 8 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/16/2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

1:21-cv-00261

-against-

ORDER

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address
173.68.49.212
Defendant.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena on
Verizon Internet Services (“Verizon”). See ECF Nos. 6-7. Plaintiff seeks to serve a subpoena to
discover the name and address of a Verizon internet customer who allegedly downloaded
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works illegally. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of
Law in Support of the Motion [ECF No. 7], Plaintiff has established good cause to be permitted
to serve a subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference in this case. See Arista Records LLC v.
Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) (describing the “appropriate general standard” for
expedited discovery). Accordingly, and for the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
Specifically, Plaintiff has established “‘(1) [the] concrete[ness of the plaintiff's] showing
of a prima facie claim of actionable harm, . . . (2) [the] specificity of the discovery request, . . .
(3) the absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information, . . . (4) [the] need for
the subpoenaed information to advance the claim, . . . and (5) the [objecting] party's expectation
of privacy.’” Id. (quoting Sony Music Entm’t v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564-65
(S.D.N.Y. 2004)) (alterations in original). Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] establishes a prima
facie case of copyright infringement. See Complaint, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 27-46, Ex. A. The request
for discovery is limited only to the discovery of the identity and address of a single person, and
1

Case 1:21-cv-00261-MKV Document 8 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2

Verizon is only person who can link the IP address associated with the allegedly illegal
downloads to a real-world person. Plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed without the identity of the
John Doe defendant in this case, and Defendant’s privacy interest is outweighed by Plaintiff’s
ability to prosecute an alleged copyright violation. See United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 97
(2d Cir. 2017) (holding party has no “legitimate privacy interest” in “IP address routing
information”).
Plaintiff may serve Verizon with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the name and address of
Defendant, to whom Verizon assigned the IP address in the Complaint. Plaintiff must serve a
copy of this order on Verizon at the same time it serves the subpoena. To the extent Verizon is a
“cable operator” pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 522(5), it shall comply with 47 U.S.C. section
551(c)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed as a
result of the anticipated subpoena to prosecute its claims in this action.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________
_
__ _
_
_
__ _____ ___ __
____
___
_
_________________________________
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
AR
Y
KO
KO
MARY AY VYSKOCIL
United States District Judge
nit
ates
United States

Date: February 16, 2021
New York, NY

2