Strike 3 Litigation

Here is one exhibit declrations strike 3 uses to OBTAIN YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION

SAMPLE OPPOSITION GENERATED BY AI (NOT LEGAL ADVICE)

DEFENDANT JOHN DOE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EARLY DISCOVERY TO IDENTIFY ISP SUBSCRIBER

Defendant John Doe, proceeding anonymously and pro se, submits this opposition to Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Strike 3”) motion seeking early discovery to identify the subscriber associated with the IP address cited in their complaint. For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff seeks expedited discovery from third-party Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to unmask the subscriber linked to an IP address allegedly involved in copyright infringement. Courts across the United States have expressed significant concerns regarding the accuracy and fairness of such early discovery requests, especially in cases involving adult content, where potential embarrassment and harm to wrongly accused defendants is severe. The inherent unreliability of IP address tracking, serious privacy issues, and risk of misidentification necessitate denial of Plaintiff’s motion.

ARGUMENT

I. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIRED GOOD CAUSE STANDARD

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), early discovery is permitted only upon demonstration of “good cause.” See Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11, 2013 WL 1504927 (D.N.J. 2013). Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a concrete showing of a prima facie claim, (2) specificity of discovery request, (3) absence of alternative methods, (4) necessity of information for litigation progression, and (5) minimal intrusion. Plaintiff here fails particularly on reliability of IP identification and potential intrusion on subscriber privacy.

II. IP ADDRESSES DO NOT RELIABLY IDENTIFY THE INFRINGER

Plaintiff’s identification relies entirely on an IP address. Numerous courts have recognized that an IP address alone does not reliably identify the individual who committed alleged infringement. An IP address only identifies a router, not a person. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Tsanko, 2013 WL 6230482 (D.N.J. 2013) (recognizing an IP address alone is insufficient to identify infringer).

Courts have acknowledged the fallibility of such evidence:

• Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2018), (finding “an IP address alone cannot establish infringement”).
• Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 82 F. Supp. 3d 650, 654 (E.D. Pa. 2015), (“The IP subscriber is not necessarily the infringer.”)

Additionally, widely-used residential Wi-Fi networks are frequently unsecured, or minimally secured, and can be accessed by multiple people simultaneously—neighbors, guests, or unauthorized intruders—rendering IP-based identifications speculative and unreliable.

III. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST VIOLATES PRIVACY RIGHTS AND CREATES UNDUE BURDEN

The Court must balance Plaintiff’s interests against the significant privacy interests and potential embarrassment or reputational harm to innocent parties. See Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 239, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (highlighting the “very real risk that defendants might be falsely identified”). Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s aggressive litigation tactics are widely documented and often result in innocent subscribers becoming targets of costly, intrusive, and embarrassing litigation.

Notably:

• Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 351 F. Supp. 3d 160 (D.D.C. 2018), cautioned about “potential for abuse and coercion” inherent in cases involving adult content.
• Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2014 WL 229295 (D. Md. 2014), emphasized harm to defendants due to public association with adult content.

IV. ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF INVESTIGATION EXIST

Plaintiff has other investigative tools available that do not infringe on subscriber privacy. This includes pursuing DMCA takedown notices, digital watermarking, direct infringement notices to subscribers, or using advanced forensic techniques which could narrow the infringer’s identification without exposing the subscriber prematurely.

V. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PRESENTS SIGNIFICANT RISK OF EXTORTIVE LITIGATION

Courts routinely recognize that early subscriber identification risks facilitating “copyright trolling”—suing subscribers not to litigate claims to judgment, but to leverage settlements from intimidated individuals eager to avoid public embarrassment. See Third Degree Films v. Doe, 2013 WL 5376273 (D.N.J. 2013) (warning of lawsuits used as vehicles for coercive settlements).

VI. PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated why early discovery is necessary or why traditional litigation processes and timelines are inadequate. Courts have required plaintiffs to exhaust less intrusive methods before seeking third-party discovery from ISPs. Strike 3 has shown no such diligence or necessity.

CONCLUSION

The court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for early discovery, as the substantial risks and harm clearly outweigh any benefits derived from early identification of the subscriber. Allowing such intrusive discovery based solely on unreliable IP evidence undermines fundamental privacy protections and procedural fairness.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN DOE Pro Se Defendant

THE MAIN ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT THE SUBSCRIBER IS NOT AWARE OF THE MOTION UNTIL AFTER IT IS APPROVED… IF YOU LUCKY ENOUGH TO DISCOVER LITIGATION EARLY ON THEN OPPOSE IT