Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-cv-2861 (RC/RMM)
)
JOHN DOE, )
Subscriber IP address 108.31.189.8 )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case arises from the alleged illegal download and distribution of adult films to which
Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3”) owns the copyright. Defendant is currently
unknown, except as the subscriber of the IP address 108.31.189.8 (“the IP address”), used to
download Strike 3’s copyright materials. To identify this subscriber, Strike 3 has filed a Motion
for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (“Motion”). See
ECF No. 6. Strike 3 specifically seeks discovery from Verizon Fios, 1 the Internet Service
Provider (“ISP”) that provides internet service to the IP address. See Mem. of P. & A. in Supp.
of Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a R. 26(f) Conference at 1, ECF
No. 6-1 (“Pl.’s Mem.”). With this subpoena, Strike 3 seeks the name and address of the
subscriber of the IP address to thereby identify Defendant John Doe. Id. at 1–2. After
considering the Motion, the pleadings, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS Strike 3 leave to
1
Plaintiff refers to Defendant’s ISP as “Verizon Fios” in both its Complaint and briefing
on the present motion. See Compl. ¶ 5; Pl.’s Mem. at 1. Accordingly, the Court assumes
without deciding, for purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, that “Verizon Fios” is the
appropriate corporate entity to receive a subpoena.
serve its third-party subpoena but DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Strike 3’s request for a
protective order. Subject to the procedure described below, Strike 3 may serve a subpoena on
Verizon Fios to obtain the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address
108.31.189.8.
BACKGROUND
Strike 3 is an adult media company based in Delaware. See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 11. As Strike
3’s content is frequently subject to piracy, the company developed a scanner with the purpose of
identifying individuals who infringe on Strike 3’s copyrighted content. See Compl. ¶¶ 16, 27–
28. With this scanner, Strike 3 established that Defendant downloaded and distributed twenty-
six of Strike 3’s copyrighted motion pictures, using IP address 108.31.189.8, in violation of the
Copyright Act. See Compl. ¶¶ 4–6, 28, 43–44; Decl. of Patrick Paige, ECF No. 6-3 (“Paige
Decl.”) ¶ 18.
Strike 3 has been unable to identify Defendant by name because only ISPs possess the
subscriber information necessary to link an individual customer to his or her IP address. See
Paige Decl. ¶ 28. Strike 3 now seeks leave to obtain expedited discovery from Verizon Fios, the
ISP for the IP address. See Pl.’s Mem. at 1. Specifically, Strike 3 proposes to serve a Rule 45
subpoena to discover the name and address of the subscriber of the IP address so that it may
further investigate—and prosecute—its claims. Id. at 2. Strike 3 represents that it will only use
the information obtained to prosecute the claims brought in its Complaint and would consent to a
protective order to allow the Defendant to proceed anonymously. See id. at 2, 9–10.
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Request for Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference
Unless authorized by court order, no party may seek any discovery prior to a Rule 26(f)
conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1); see also Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 964 F.3d 1203,
2
1207 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Such an order is the “only potential avenue for discovery” in cases in
which information from a third party is necessary to identify possible defendants. AF Holdings,
LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990, 995 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
To obtain discovery at that stage, a plaintiff must “have at least a good faith belief that
[expedited] discovery will enable it to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant.” Id. After this requirement is met, courts in this Circuit traditionally have permitted
expedited discovery if the plaintiff has established good cause to obtain the discovery. See
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 64 F. Supp. 3d 47, 49 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing Warner Bros. Records
Inc. v. Does 1–6, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2007) (“[T]he Court finds that plaintiffs have
made a showing of good cause for the discovery they seek.”)); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19,
551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6–7 (D.D.C. 2008) (noting the “overwhelming” number of cases where
plaintiffs sought to identify “Doe” defendants and courts “routinely applied” the good cause
standard to permit discovery). However, the D.C. Circuit has clarified that a court’s analysis of
whether to permit discovery must be grounded in the framework of Rule 26(b)—under which
relevance and proportionality are the dispositive factors. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, 964 F.3d at
1207 (“A district court’s discretion to order discovery, whether before or after the parties have
conferred, is cabined by Rule 26(b)’s general limitations on the scope of discovery.”); In re
Clinton, 973 F.3d 106, 114 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citing Strike 3 for same proposition). The D.C.
Circuit declined to expressly determine “whether the ‘good cause’ standard continues to apply
under the current version of Rule 26.” Strike 3 Holdings, 964 F.3d at 1207 n.2. However, given
that Rule 26 does not currently incorporate a good cause standard, 2 the Court will evaluate Strike
2
The good cause standard appears to stem from the pre-2015 version of Rule 26(b)(1),
which allowed courts to order discovery of relevant matters “for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1) (2015); see AF Holdings, 758 F.3d 990, 995 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting that discretion to
3
3’s Motion by assessing the relevance and proportionality of the proposed discovery. See
generally Goodwin v. D.C., No. 21-cv-806, 2021 WL 1978795, at *3 n.1 (D.D.C. May 18, 2021)
(conducting Rule 26 relevance and proportionality analysis to evaluate request for early
discovery instead of applying “good cause” standard).
II. Motion for Protective Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits the Court, upon a showing of “good
cause,” to “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); see also Huthnance v. D.C.,
255 F.R.D. 285, 296 (D.D.C. 2008) (“[G]ood cause exists under Rule 26(c) when justice requires
the protection of a party or a person from any annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.”) (quoting Fonville v. D.C., 230 F.R.D. 38, 40 (D.D.C. 2005)). Protective
orders may also be used to “limit the manner in which . . . confidential information is to be
revealed.” Univ. of Mass. v. Roslin Inst., 437 F. Supp. 2d 57, 60 (D.D.C. 2006). The party
requesting the protective order generally bears the burden of showing good cause “by
demonstrating specific evidence of the harm that would result.” Jennings v. Family Mgmt., 201
F.R.D. 272, 274–75 (D.D.C. 2001); Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 71, 75 (D.D.C. 1998).
Nonetheless, trial courts have broad discretion to issue and set the terms of a protective order and
may do so sua sponte. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984); Keaveney v.
SRA Int’l, Inc., No. 13-cv-00855, 2017 WL 1842544, *2 (D.D.C. May 3, 2017); Edwards v.
Gordon & Co., 94 F.R.D. 584, 587 (D.D.C. 1982).
order expedited discovery is “cabined by Rule 26(b)(1)’s general requirements that a discovery
order be ‘[f]or good cause’ and relate to a ‘matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action.’”). However, the 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b) replaced the good cause standard and
made relevance and proportionality the touchstones for permitting discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1); In re Clinton, 973 F.3d at 114 n.2 (discussing changes to Rule 26).
4
DISCUSSION
I. The Proposed Discovery Is Both Relevant and Proportional to Strike 3’s
Copyright Infringement Claims
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow discovery “regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance is “construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on,
or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any party’s claim or defense.”
United States ex rel. Shamesh v. CA, Inc., 314 F.R.D. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2016). When addressing
proportionality, courts must consider six factors: the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[N]o
single factor is designed to outweigh the other factors in determining whether the discovery
sought is proportional.” Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 322 F.R.D. 1,
6 (D.D.C. 2017).
A. Relevance
The name and address of the subscriber associated with the IP address 108.31.189.8 is
relevant because it will help Strike 3 identify the John Doe Defendant. See Strike 3 Holdings,
LLC, 964 F.3d at 1210 (“It is well established that plaintiffs are permitted to proceed against
John Doe defendants so long as discovery can be expected to uncover the defendant’s identity.”).
Strike 3 cannot prosecute its claims without knowing the identity of the alleged infringer, and
therefore the information it seeks to obtain from Verizon Fios clearly “bears directly on,” and is
relevant to, Strike 3’s claim. Goodwin, 2021 WL 1978795, at *4; see generally Strike 3
Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2019 WL 1865919, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) (denying motion to
5
quash subpoena served to identify a potential infringer and noting that “Plaintiff needs the
subscriber information to conduct a good faith investigation”). Although the subscriber of the IP
address may not be the infringer, at this stage, Strike 3 need only demonstrate that learning the
subscriber’s identity may help it identify the infringer. See Strike 3 Holdings, 964 F.3d at 1210;
see also Arista Records, 551 F. Supp. 2d at 8 (refusing to consider arguments that the subscriber
associated with the IP address may not be the actual infringer when reviewing a motion to quash
a subpoena served during expedited discovery).
Further, Strike 3 has established a good faith belief that the infringer will be subject to the
Court’s personal jurisdiction. Absent such a showing, “there is little reason to believe that the
information sought will be ‘relevant to the subject matter involved in the action,’” because “[t]he
identity of prospective defendants who cannot properly be sued in this district can be of little use
in a lawsuit brought in this district.” 3 AF Holdings, 752 F.3d at 995 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1)); see also Strike 3 Holdings, 964 F.3d at 166–67. Strike 3’s claims arise under the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., which “does not provide for the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over alleged infringers on any basis.” Malibu Media LLC v. Doe, 177 F. Supp. 3d
554, 556 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Exquisite Multimedia, Inc., 2012 WL 177885, at *2).
Accordingly, this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant depends “on the reach of District
of Columbia law.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). District of Columbia law confers personal
jurisdiction “over a person domiciled in, organized under the laws of, or maintaining his or its
principal place of business in, the District of Columbia as to any claim for relief.” D.C. Code
3
Courts applying the good cause standard described this as a threshold issue that
plaintiffs must prove before the Court determined whether to allow expedited discovery. See AF
Holdings, 752 F.3d at 996. As that showing was tied to establishing the relevance of the
proposed discovery, the Court addresses personal jurisdiction as part of the Rule 26(b) analysis,
instead of as a separate threshold showing.
6
Ann. § 13-422. In addition, the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute provides, in relevant
part, that a D.C. court may exercise personal jurisdiction “over a person, who acts directly or by
an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s . . . causing tortious injury in the
District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia.” D.C. Code Ann. § 13-
423(a)(3); see also Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-23, 322, 799 F. Supp. 2d 34, 38 n.3 (D.D.C. 2011)
(noting that it is “well settled in this jurisdiction that a claim for copyright infringement sounds
in tort”). Applying those principles to a copyright infringement case such as this, “the only
conceivable way that personal jurisdiction might properly be exercised” over Defendant is if
Defendant is a “resident[] of the District of Columbia or at least downloaded the copyrighted
work in the District.” AF Holdings, 752 F.3d at 996; see also Malibu Media, LLC, 177 F. Supp.
3d at 557.
Using geolocation technology, Strike 3 has traced the IP address to the District of
Columbia, thereby establishing a good faith belief that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
the subscriber of the IP address. See Compl. ¶¶ 8–9, 37–42, and Ex. A; Malibu Media, LLC,
2016 WL 1698263, at *2 (finding that an IP address “suffices to ‘provide at least some basis for
determining whether a particular subscriber might live in the District of Columbia’” and that
using an IP address “is sufficient to demonstrate a good faith belief that the court has personal
jurisdiction over the defendant”). The D.C. Circuit has recognized that “geolocation services”
provide a reliable means to “estimate the location of Internet users based on their IP addresses.”
AF Holdings, 752 F.3d at 996; see also Nu Image, 799 F. Supp. 2d at 40 (“Plaintiff can establish
such a good faith basis for residence or personal jurisdiction by utilizing geolocation services
that are generally available to the public to derive the approximate location of the IP addresses
identified for each putative defendant.”). In addition, even if discovery reveals that the owner of
7
the IP address does not live in the District, there is still a good faith basis to believe that the
Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the same geolocation technology also
traced a substantial portion of Defendant’s infringement (“tortious activity”) to the District of
Columbia. See Compl. at ¶¶ 8–9; Nu Image, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 2d at 41. Therefore,
jurisdictional discovery to identify the Defendant is relevant.
B. Proportionality
The requested discovery is also proportional. Strike 3 seeks to issue a narrow subpoena
directing Verizon Fios to provide the name and address of the individual or entity that was
associated with the IP address during the relevant time. Given the importance of the issues at
stake, Strike 3’s inability to pursue its claim without identifying the Defendant, and Strike 3’s
inability to access the infringer’s identity without the ISP’s assistance, this minimally
burdensome subpoena is proportional to the case.
To determine the “importance of issues” in the proportionality analysis, courts must
consider “the significance of the substantive issues, as measured in philosophic, social, or
institutional terms.” Oxbow, 322 F.R.D. at 7 (citing Arrow Enter. Computing Solutions, Inc. v.
BlueAlly, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-37, 2017 WL 876266, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2017)) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). “‘[C]ases in public policy spheres, such as employment
practices, free speech, and other matters,’ which often ‘seek[] to vindicate vitally important
personal and public values’ and may have importance far beyond the monetary amount
involved’” typically are considered to implicate “important” issues. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
26 advisory committee’s note) (alteration in original). Strike 3’s claim implicates important
property rights protected by the Copyright Act. The Constitution itself provides the authority to
copyright in order “to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” Twentieth
8
Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975); see generally Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,
510 U.S. 517, 526 (1994) (discussing the societal value and competing interests inherent in
copyright protection). As such, a copyright holder is entitled to protect its interest in copyrighted
work, regardless of its content. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, 964 F.3d at 1210. Identifying the
infringer, so that the civil case may proceed, is essential for Strike 3 to vindicate its rights and
thwart the large-scale piracy of its films. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of permitting
expedited discovery.
The parties’ relative access to the information also weighs in favor of permitting
expedited discovery. This factor focuses on “information asymmetry—a circumstance in which
one party has very little discoverable information while the other party has vast amounts of
discoverable information.” Oxbow, 322 F.R.D. at 8. Here the asymmetry is extreme—Strike 3
has no way to independently access the subscriber information for the IP address, whereas
Verizon Fios should be able to readily retrieve the information from its records. See Paige Decl.
¶ 28 (explaining that tracking the IP address connected with the infringement is the only lead
Strike 3 has towards identifying the defendant); BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Comm’ns,
Inc., 881 F.3d 293, 299 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting “only the ISP can match the IP address to the
subscriber’s identity.”).
When assessing the discovery’s importance in resolving the issues, courts evaluate
“whether ‘[t]he issues at stake are at the very heart of [the] litigation.’” Oxbow, 322 F.R.D. at 8(citations omitted). Strike 3 cannot prosecute its case without identifying the John Doe
Defendant but has no way to access the information on its own. Thus, Strike 3 has a particularly
strong need for expedited discovery.
9
The remaining factors also indicate that Strike 3’s requested discovery is proportional. It
is difficult to ascertain the amount in controversy at this stage, but Strike 3 seeks statutory
damages for each infringed work plus attorneys’ fees and costs. See Compl. ¶ 46. In a similar
case, Strike 3 sought the statutory minimum of $750 per infringed work. See Strike 3 Holdings
LLC v. Doe, No. 18-cv-1173, 2019 WL 1277561, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019). If the same
measure of damages is sought here, Strike 3 could recover up to $19,500 ($750 x 26), plus
attorneys’ fees and costs. See Compl. ¶ 37 (noting the number of files “determined to be
identical (or substantially similar) to a copyrighted work(s) that Plaintiff owns.”). The discovery
appears to place a minimal burden and expense upon Verizon Fios, which need only search its
records, which presumably are maintained electronically, to obtain the subscriber information. 4
In sum, the proportionality factors, when balanced and applied to the facts Strike 3 has
alleged, counsel in favor of permitting Strike 3 to conduct expedited discovery to attempt to
identify the subscriber of the IP address. Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed discovery
satisfies Rule 26(b)(1).
II. Although Strike 3 Has Not Demonstrated That a Protective Order Is Warranted,
Temporary Restrictions on Disclosure Are Appropriate to Protect the
Subscriber’s Right to Seek Confidentiality
Strike 3 “encourages” the Court to issue a protective order establishing procedural
safeguards, such as allowing Defendant to proceed anonymously. Pl.’s Mem. at 9–10. Courts in
this District have issued protective orders in cases very similar to this one. See, e.g., Strike 3
Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 17-cv-2347, 2018 WL 385418, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2018). There
4
Because proportionality is being analyzed here to determine whether to allow expedited
discovery, the Court’s analysis is necessarily limited to the information presented by Strike 3.
Verizon Fios may produce evidence in a motion to quash that would fundamentally alter the
proportionality analysis, and this opinion should not be read as foreclosing that possibility.
10
may be grounds to shield the identity of the Defendant from public disclosure. Strike 3 seeks
discovery related to a potentially sensitive topic—the alleged illegal downloading and
distribution of adult films. Although Strike 3 was able to identify the IP address associated with
those downloads and trace it to the District of Columbia, it is theoretically possible that the
targeted subscriber is not the infringer. See Media Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-26, No. 12-cv-3719,
2012 WL 2190613, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2012) (discussing risks that the infringer could be
“a third party who had access to the internet connection, such as a son or daughter, houseguest,
neighbor, or customer of a business offering an internet connection,” and discussing the risks that
defendants might be falsely identified). However, it is equally and arguably more plausible that
the Defendant is the infringer, and defendants charged with salacious conduct are not
automatically permitted to remain anonymous. Indeed, the default presumption in federal courts
is that judicial records and proceedings will be publicly accessible, and parties may only proceed
anonymously if the court determines that the party’s privacy interests “outweigh the public’s
presumptive and substantial interest in knowing the details of judicial litigation.” John Doe Co.
v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 321 F.R.D. 31, 34 (D.D.C. 2017). Given the limited information
available at this stage of the litigation, it is premature to enter a protective order allowing the
Defendant, once identified, to remain anonymous. Accordingly, the Court denies without
prejudice Strike 3’s request for a protective order.
Once Defendant receives notice of the subpoena and this litigation, Defendant may well
assert an interest in anonymity that would warrant the issuance of a protective order. Indeed,
Defendant is best situated to present such a request to the Court. To avoid prejudicing
Defendant’s ability to seek such an order in the future, the Court will restrict the disclosure of
Defendant’s name and address for a limited period as explained below. See infra Part III.
11
III. Procedure Governing Expedited Discovery
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will permit Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena
upon Verizon Fios in order to obtain the identity of the individual associated with IP address
108.31.189.8. The subpoena may seek identifying information including the individual’s name
and current and permanent address. Strike 3 shall provide the ISP with a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order with its subpoena. Any information
disclosed to Strike 3 in response to a Rule 45 subpoena may be used solely for the purpose of
protecting Strike 3’s rights as set forth in the Complaint and shall not be disclosed publicly,
except as authorized below.
If and when the ISP is served with a subpoena, the ISP shall give written notice, which
may include e-mail notice, to the subscriber in question at least fourteen (14) days prior to
releasing the subscriber’s identifying information to Strike 3. If the ISP and/or Defendant would
like to move to quash the subpoena, the party must do so before the return date of the subpoena,
which shall be no earlier than forty-five (45) days from the date of service. The ISP shall
preserve any subpoenaed information, pending the resolution of any timely filed motion to
quash.
If the Defendant wishes to proceed anonymously in this litigation, Defendant shall make
that request through a motion for protective order. Any such motion shall be filed within thirty
(30) days of when Defendant receives written notice of the subpoena from the ISP. The motion
requesting anonymity may be filed under seal if it contains information identifying the
Defendant. If the motion is filed under seal, or is not filed electronically, Defendant shall serve a
copy upon counsel for Strike 3.
To preserve Defendant’s ability to seek a protective order, Strike 3 shall refrain from
identifying Defendant’s name on the public docket for a period of thirty (30) days after receiving
12
the subscriber’s identifying information from the ISP. On or before December 1, 2023, Strike 3
shall file a status report with the Court briefly outlining its progress, including providing an
expected completion date of the discovery allowed by the accompanying Order and addressing
whether Strike 3 has received any formal or informal requests for anonymity from Defendant.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference, ECF No. 6, but DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request for a protective order. A separate Order will
accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: October 17, 2023 Signed: _____________________________
Robin M. Meriweather
United States Magistrate Judge
13