Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits: Direct Answers

No. An IP address identifies an internet connection, not a person. The Ninth Circuit held in Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2018), that a bare allegation that a defendant is the registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity does not even state a claim for direct or contributory infringement. The plaintiff must connect a person to the conduct, and its monitoring software cannot do that. In practice it tries to close the gap with discovery directed at you, which is why what you say and when you say it matters so much.

Yes, though not by name. A federal complaint has already been filed against a defendant identified only as the John Doe subscriber assigned your IP address, and a judge has authorized a subpoena to your provider. You are still anonymous, and that is the point of maximum leverage in the entire case. See our page on the ISP subpoena stage.

Before identification, your provider produces your name and address on the date in the letter and you lose the only advantage you have. After you are served, ignoring the case allows the plaintiff to take a default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, and a default judgment in a copyright case can include statutory damages per work plus costs and attorney's fees, enforceable by wage garnishment, bank levy, and judgment liens. Ignoring it is the most expensive option available.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), generally 21 days after service to serve an answer. If you timely waived service under Rule 4(d), the period is 60 days from when the request was sent. A timely Rule 12 motion changes the schedule under Rule 12(a)(4). Always confirm the district's local rules, and calendar the date immediately.

Usually not, and rarely as a first reflex. The subpoena is directed to your ISP rather than to you, which creates a standing problem, and courts frequently find that a subscriber's privacy interest, while real, does not outweigh the plaintiff's need for the information. A motion for a protective order seeking anonymity, sealing, and use restrictions is often the better instrument. Our page on motions to quash gives the honest assessment.

Not while you are a Doe. Once the plaintiff names and serves you, the caption is a public record unless the court permits you to proceed under a pseudonym and seals identifying filings. Some judges have built those protections into the early discovery order on their own initiative. A motion for a protective order is best made early, before your name has circulated.

Talk to a lawyer, under privilege, before you talk to anyone else. This situation is common and it is genuinely difficult, because the answer that protects you may expose someone you care about. It affects both the viability of the identity defense and the shape of any resolution, including whether a release covers all household members. It is exactly the conversation the attorney-client privilege exists for.

Possibly, if the case proceeds into discovery. Forensic inspection is sometimes demanded. The scope, protocol, and protections around any such inspection are negotiable, and they get negotiated far better by counsel than by an unrepresented defendant. Whatever you do, do not wipe, reset, or discard any device. The duty to preserve attaches as soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated.

No. These matters resolve at every stage. What changes is leverage. Before identification the plaintiff has no defendant at all. After service it has a named defendant, sunk costs, and discovery tools. After a deposition in which admissions were made, its position is stronger again. Earlier is ordinarily better, but later is not hopeless.

Generally there is no good reason to pay to resolve a claim you did not incur, and the plaintiff's identity evidence does not improve with time. That said, the decision belongs to you, and confidentiality, cost, and personal circumstances legitimately factor into it. What should not drive it is embarrassment, because embarrassment is the mechanism the model runs on.

There is no schedule and no reliable published figure. Publicly reported outcomes span a very wide band and almost never disclose the number of works, the registration posture, the stage of the case, or whether counsel was involved. Anyone who quotes you a number before reading your complaint and Exhibit A is guessing. The number of works asserted and how many of them survive 17 U.S.C. section 412 are the largest drivers.

Possibly. Under 17 U.S.C. section 505 a court may award costs and a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party, which includes a prevailing defendant. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. 197 (2016), directs courts to give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party's position. An award is discretionary, not automatic, but the possibility is real and it affects negotiation.

It is a real provision and it is frequently oversold. Section 504(c)(2) permits a court to reduce statutory damages to as little as $200 per work where the infringer proves and the court finds that the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe the acts constituted infringement. It is limited by 17 U.S.C. section 401(d), which forecloses the defense in mitigation of damages where a proper copyright notice appeared on the published copies to which the infringer had access. In practice it functions as a factor in negotiation and in the court's exercise of discretion, not as an answer to liability.

Not necessarily, and depending on the facts it can be argued against you as evidence of concealment. If a VPN was in use during the relevant period, tell your lawyer immediately. It is a fact that shapes strategy, and the worst place to disclose it for the first time is at a deposition.

No. Courts have declined to create an obscenity exception to copyright protection, and the D.C. Circuit held in Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 964 F.3d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 2020), that the content of the works is irrelevant to whether early discovery should be permitted. The subject matter affects the human stakes of the case. It does not affect the copyright analysis.

Sometimes it matters a great deal and sometimes it does not. Federal court admission is district specific, and where a matter requires an appearance in a district in which counsel is not admitted, qualified local counsel is associated. Experience with this specific plaintiff, with its counsel, and with the technical record is frequently worth more than proximity, but both should be discussed openly before you retain anyone.

A civil copyright claim must be commenced within three years after the claim accrued. 17 U.S.C. section 507(b). Application of that limitation to a series of alleged downloads over time is fact specific and is a question for counsel reviewing your Exhibit A.

Calendar the deadline in your notice or on your summons. Preserve every device and every account, and change nothing. Do not contact Strike 3 or its counsel. Do not discuss the allegations by text or email with anyone other than a lawyer. Write down privately, for counsel, everyone who had access to your network during the relevant dates. Then call a lawyer who handles these matters.