Are US Courts Cracking Down on Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits?
You may have heard of the copyright lawsuits that Strike 3 Holdings LLC have been filing for years. They allege that individuals have illegally downloaded their adult films without paying the proper licensing fees.
Defendants often have little time to act and can face large fines as well as the risk of their name being tied to the case. Defendants usually become aware of the case when they receive a letter from their internet service provider (ISP) and a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings.
Strike 3 Holdings typically requests the defendant’s name in what is called “expedited discovery”. This allows Strike 3 Holdings access to the defendant’s name, enabling them to amend the case to reflect the defendant’s name, resulting in a loss of anonymity.
Many defendants choose to settle anonymously, some choose to file a motion to quash, and others choose to fight in court. But some judges have pointed out that these lawsuits are no more than ‘copyright-trolling’, seemingly siding against Strike 3 Holdings.
Good News for Strike 3 Defendants?
While the results of each case have varied, a court in New Jersey recently denied Strike 3 Holdings’ requests for expedited discovery stating that Strike 3 Holdings had not “established good cause to request the discovery and the discovery is unreasonable under the present circumstances”.
According to the recent opinion by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, good cause does not exist because:
“(1) Strike 3 bases its complaints on unequivocal affirmative representations of alleged facts that it does not know to be true; (2) Strike 3’s subpoenas are misleading and create too great of an opportunity for misidentification; (3) the linchpin of Strike 3’s good cause argument, that expedited discovery is the only way to stop infringement of its works, is wrong; (4) Strike 3 has other available means to stop infringement besides suing individual subscribers in thousands of John Doe complaints; (5) the deterrent effect of Strike 3’s lawsuits is questionable; (6) substantial prejudice may inure to subscribers who are misidentified; and (7) Strike 3 underestimates the substantial interest subscribers have in the constitutionally protected privacy of their subscription information.”
What This Means for Defendants
While this ruling is a win for defendants in Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits, it may not be indicative of every courts’ ruling. Defendants in these cases should never assume that their case will be an easy win and should consider consulting with an ISP subpoena defense lawyer to discuss their specific case.
Antonelli Law has worked on cases just like these for years and helped roughly 3000 clients resolve their cases across the US. We can look at your specific case and help you decide the best course of action for you.
We work with clients nationwide and offer free consultations.
To schedule your free consultation, click here or call 312-201-8310
Share! Save Someone From Being Sued
Should I ignore Strike 3 Holdings?
Strike 3 Holdings LLC / Malibu Media LLC: Lawsuit filings way down in August and September.
Why Making an Offer of Judgment in a Strike 3 Holdings or Malibu Media Case May Be a Horrible Idea
About Author
JAntonelli
Jeffrey Antonelli is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois and is admitted to numerous federal courts around the country. He has been a civil litigator nearly 25 years in a broad range of actions representing corporations and individuals as plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal court. Jeffrey has been interviewed by the media many times, including Bloomberg BNA, NBC, The New York Times, Chicago Lawyer, Chicago Tribune, and the longstanding lawyer’s publication Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Prior to forming Antonelli Law Ltd. in 2007 Jeffrey worked for several litigation boutiques in Chicago’s Loop as well as a full service firm. His litigation experience includes hotly contested issues in intellectual property, business, insurance, and consumer fraud. He is an adviser to the Illinois Board of Higher Education Advisory Council for Private Business and Vocational Schools (PBVS), and was a member of the Illinois State Bar Association Education Law Section Council from 2012-2013. Jeffrey is especially proud of his work representing hundreds of students defrauded by improperly accredited educational institutions, including as certified class counsel. Before attending law school, Jeffrey was interested first in business, and then in biomedical ethics. These interests led him to graduate from the nation’s largest philosophy department at Loyola University in Chicago, where some of his favorite (and most challenging) subjects were cognitive science and philosophy of science. During college he held positions at the University of Chicago’s Ben May Institute; as a medical assistant for a University of Chicago foot and ankle surgeon; and volunteered in the emergency room at the University of Chicago Hospitals. These experiences led to studying health law at the DePaul College of Law where Jeffrey earned his law degree and a certificate in health law. At that time DePaul’s Institute for Health Law was consistently ranked in the top 10 health law specialty programs nationwide. During law school Jeffrey immersed himself in studying the practical and public policy aspects of health care through internships at the American Medical Association in Chicago, and on Capitol Hill at the Governmental Relations Office of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, DC. Jeffrey has concentrated in civil litigation throughout his legal career, and is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois federal court, and all federal courts of Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In addition, he is a member of the DuPage County Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association. Jeffrey prides himself on his strong personal ideals, passionate, ethical advocacy, and working hard to bring the best possible results for his clients. He also maintains a special interest in cases involving fraud. Whether due to good parenting, his family’s law enforcement employment, undergraduate studies in philosophy including ethics, or a fortuitous outcome of good breeding, one essence of Jeffrey’s character is a drive to root out the truth behind fraudulent practices.