Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-04137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed a subpoena to identify the unknown defendant and delayed scheduling until after an answer.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unnamed Doe defendant are directly affected. Verizon Fios may receive the third-party subpoena, and the case’s scheduling was deferred until after the defendant answers.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns an unknown defendant identified only by an Internet Protocol address in a copyright-infringement case.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties’ required discovery conference to learn the defendant’s name and address. It also asked the court not to schedule the initial case-management conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s motion to serve a third-party subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. It stated that an initial scheduling conference would not be scheduled until sometime after the defendant answered. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-04137
- Nelson Roman
- June 25, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, stating that the defendant’s name and address were unknown. The plaintiff alleged that the Internet Protocol address assigned to the defendant had been used to infringe its copyrights through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. The plaintiff said Verizon Fios, the Internet service provider associated with the address, maintained records that could identify the subscriber.
Requested Discovery
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery generally cannot begin before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena under Rule 45 before that conference. The plaintiff argued that it would show good cause for the discovery, make a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, submit a specific request, demonstrate that no alternative means existed to obtain the information, and show a limited expectation of privacy concerning the requested records.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to serve a third-party subpoena under Rule 45. The court also stated that an initial Rule 16 scheduling conference would not be scheduled until sometime after the defendant had answered. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 6. This order addressed early discovery and scheduling; the opinion text does not state that the court decided whether copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.