Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-04134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas granted Strike 3’s request to file a motion for early discovery to identify the unknown defendant and delay the scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may file its requested motion for early discovery and seek the requested delay of the scheduling conference. The unidentified Doe defendant and Verizon Internet Services may be affected by any later subpoena or scheduling order, but this text does not authorize the subpoena itself.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3’s allegations that an unidentified internet subscriber used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrighted works. Strike 3 said it knew the defendant only by an internet address and that Verizon Internet Services could identify the subscriber.
Strike 3 asked permission to file a motion seeking an early subpoena to Verizon before the parties’ required initial discovery-planning meeting. It also asked the court to delay, or not schedule, the initial case-management conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The court granted the request. Judge Kenneth M. Karas therefore allowed Strike 3 to pursue the requested motion and requested scheduling relief; the text does not show that the court itself authorized the subpoena or decided the copyright claim.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-04134
- Kenneth Karas
- June 20, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed this case against a defendant identified as John Doe because the defendant’s name and address were not known. Strike 3 stated that it owns three subscription-based adult websites and the copyrights to the movies distributed through those websites. It alleged that the Doe defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe its copyrighted works and that the defendant’s internet service provider, Verizon Internet Services, could identify the subscriber associated with the relevant internet address.
Plaintiff’s Request
Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking discovery before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the required meeting in which the parties ordinarily discuss their discovery and case-management plans. The proposed discovery was a subpoena to Verizon for information identifying the Doe defendant. Strike 3 argued that early discovery was needed because internet providers may retain identifying records for only a short time.
Strike 3 also asked the court to adjourn any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference, or not schedule one, until the defendant was identified and served. The letter stated that Strike 3 would address the requirements for early discovery—including a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific request, the lack of another way to obtain the information, the importance of the information, and the defendant’s limited expectation of privacy—in a later motion.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Granted. So Ordered.” The ruling granted Strike 3’s pre-motion request to file a motion seeking permission for the early third-party subpoena and its request concerning the timing of the initial scheduling conference.
The text does not state that the court granted the subpoena itself, ruled on the proposed discovery under the listed factors, identified the Doe defendant, or decided whether copyright infringement occurred. This was an ancillary discovery and scheduling ruling rather than a decision on the merits of Strike 3’s copyright claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.