Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedMarch 4, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-00396
StatusUnknown

This text of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, (D. Md. 2025).

Opinion

IN TFHOER U TNHIET EDDIS STTRAICTETS O DFI SMTARRICYTL ACNODU RT

* STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL NO. 25-396-ABA

JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address * 73.128.103.253, * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Court has pending before it this lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3” or “Plaintiff”) alleging copyright infringement and other claims against a single “John Doe” defendant (“Doe Defendant”), who is alleged to have utilized the BitTorrent file distribution network to download adult pornographic films subject to copyrights held by Strike 3. The Doe Defendant has been identified in the lawsuit only by an Internet Protocol address1 (“IP Address”) assigned to a customer on a specific date by an Internet Service Provider (“ISP” or “Provider”) and through which the copyrighted work was allegedly downloaded. Strike 3 has filed a motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena prior to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) discovery conference (ECF 4), requesting permission to initiate discovery to identify the account subscriber (“Doe Subscriber”) associated with the IP Address used to download its copyrighted films,

1 An IP address is not really an “address” or physical “place” in the usual sense of the words, and therefore the term can be quite misleading. In fact, it is only an electronic “route” to the Internet assigned by a Provider to a customer on a given date and hour to provide access to the Internet. The route can be assigned to different customers on given dates or given hours. If a customer accesses the Internet briefly and signs off, the IP address is assigned to another customer. notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 26(d)(1), which preclude a party from seeking discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Strike 3 contends that it must be permitted to issue a Rule 45 subpoena to Providers to identify the customer assigned the IP Address on the date or dates in question in order to learn the identity of the person responsible for downloading the copyrighted works, and that there is no other way for it to obtain this information. The Court is aware that in similar cases filed by plaintiffs in other jurisdictions against Doe Defendants, concerns have been raised as to the sufficiency of the allegations of complaints because association of an IP address with a customer may be insufficient to state a claim.2 There also have been reports of plaintiffs undertaking abusive settlement negotiations with Doe

Defendants due to the pornographic content in the copyrighted works, the potential for embarrassment, and the possibility of defendants paying settlements even though they did not download the plaintiff’s copyrighted material.3

2 See, e.g., Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe 1, 288 F.R.D. 233, 237–39 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting many courts’ “skepticism of the use of IP addresses to identify file sharing defendants in cases involving pornographic films,” adopting a magistrate judge’s finding that “an IP address alone is insufficient to establish ‘a reasonable likelihood [that] it will lead to the identity of defendants who could be sued,’” and observing that “[d]ue to the prevalence of wireless routers, the actual device that performed the allegedly infringing activity could have been owned by a relative or guest of the account owner, or even an interloper without the knowledge of the owner.”). 3 See, e.g., Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 239, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“The Court is concerned about the possibility that many of the names and addresses produced in response to Plaintiff’s discovery request will not in fact be those of the individuals who downloaded [the copyrighted material]. The risk is not purely speculative; Plaintiff’s counsel estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material. Counsel stated that the true offender is often the ‘teenaged son . . . or the boyfriend if it’s a lady.’”); K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-85, No. 3:11cv469-JAG, at 4 (E.D. Va. Oct.5, 2011), ECF No. 9 (“Some defendants have indicated that the plaintiff has contacted them directly with harassing telephone calls, demanding $2,900 in compensation to end the litigation. . . . This course of conduct indicates that the plaintiffs have used the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain the Doe defendants’ personal information and coerce payment from them. The Having considered the concerns raised by other courts that have addressed similar cases, including this Court in, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.100.68.129, Case No. 1:22-cv-01659-JKB (D. Md. July 15, 2022), ECF 5, and Strike 3’s motion requesting permission to initiate discovery to identify the John Doe Subscriber, the Court GRANTS the motion, subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1. Strike 3 may obtain from the Clerk a Subpoena to be served on the ISP through which the Doe Subscriber allegedly downloaded the copyrighted work, and it may serve the ISP in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The Subpoena may command production of documents and/or electronically stored information (collectively, “Information”) identifying the Doe Subscriber. The Subpoena shall

have as an attachment a copy of the complaint filed in this lawsuit, and a copy of this Order. 2. After having been served with the Subpoena, the ISP will delay producing to Strike 3 the subpoenaed Information until after it has provided the Doe Subscriber with: a. Notice that this suit has been filed naming the Doe Subscriber as the one that allegedly downloaded copyright protected work; b. A copy of the Subpoena, the complaint filed in this lawsuit, and this Order; c. Notice that the ISP will comply with the Subpoena and produce to Strike 3 the Information sought in the Subpoena unless, within 30 days of

service of the Subpoena, the Doe Subscriber files a motion to quash the Subpoena or for other appropriate relief in this Court. If a timely motion

plaintiffs seemingly have no interest in actually litigating the cases, but rather simply have used the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the John Does.”). to quash is filed, the ISP shall not produce the subpoenaed Information until the Court acts on the motion. 3. The Doe Subscriber may move to quash the Subpoena anonymously, but MUST PROVIDE his or her name and current address to the Clerk of the Court so that the Court may provide notice of the filings to the Subscriber. This may be accomplished by completing and mailing to the Clerk of the Court the attached form (Exhibit C). This contact information will not be disclosed to the Plaintiff and will be used solely for the purposes stated above. The Court will not decide any motions until the Doe Subscriber has provided all required information. If the Doe Subscriber fails to file a motion to quash the Subpoena or for other appropriate

relief within 30 days, the ISP shall provide to Strike 3 the Information requested in the Subpoena within 14 days. Strike 3’s use of this Information shall be restricted as further provided in this Order. Pursuant to Rule 45(c), Strike 3 shall reimburse the ISP for its reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, associated with complying with the Subpoena and this Order. 4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176
279 F.R.D. 239 (S.D. New York, 2012)
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe 1
288 F.R.D. 233 (E.D. New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strike-3-holdings-llc-v-john-doe-mdd-2025.