Judge Finds Conflict with Strike 3 Holdings Case in Minnesota District Court

Share

A Minnesota judge denied several subpoena requests from Strike 3 Holdings, a company that produces adult films.

This is a blog dedicated to updates on copyright infringement cases. We’ve represented nearly 2,000 clients across the US, and are America’s most experienced BT copyright defense firm; we can represent you in your case against Strike 3 Holdings  For more information about handling your subpoena visit our Strike 3 Holdings page.

According to Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel, there is a conflict between the defendant’s privacy rights and the copyright protections of the DMCA for Strike 3 Holdings. 

Strike 3 Holdings in Minnesota

Recently a Minnesota district court denied several subpoena requests from Strike 3 Holdings to ask Comcast for the personal details of the user associated with the IP address which they allege illegally downloaded their adult content.

Judge Franklin Noel raised concerns about a conflict when he rejected this discovery motion. Judge Noel wrote, “This Court concludes that the conflict between the statutes, DMCA and the Communications Act, compels it to deny Plaintiff’s instant ex parte motion.”

This may have led to a similar ruling in another Strike 3 case where Judge David Schultz denied subpoena requests from Strike 3 Holdings. Schultz wrote, “From this Court’s perspective there are obvious tensions between DMCA, the Communications Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s need to discover the actual identity of the infringer of its copyright; however, the discovery sought by Plaintiff through a Rule 45 subpoena directly collides with federal privacy protections.”

However it is still possible that the district judge or an appeals court may reverse these decisions.

Your Strike 3 Holdings Case

If you have received a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings, you have three options.

  1. Settle anonymously: You can anonymously resolve your case by agreeing to a financial settlement. Your ISP will not release your name. However, you will have to pay the settlement regardless of whether you feel you should have to.
  2. File a motion to quash: With a motion to quash, you are attempting to show the judge that the case against you lacks sufficient evidence. This is most viable in certain circumstances such as if the subpoena was filed in a different jurisdiction from where you live.
  3. Fight it: Choose an experienced law firm, like Antonelli Law, to fight for you in court. We are well-versed in the fields of computer networking and computer forensics which are crucial to understanding these cases. 

Interested in working with Antonelli Law? Check out our AVVO ratings. 

For more information visit our Strike 3 Holdings page or contact us at 312-201-8310 to schedule your free consultation.

Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe in Minnesota:

  • 0:18-cv-00768
  • 0:18-cv-00771
  • 0:18-cv-00773
  • 0:18-cv-00774
  • 0:18-cv-00775
  • 0:18-cv-00777
  • 0:18-cv-00778
  • 0:18-cv-00779
Share

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *