Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-06473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman granted Strike 3 Holdings’ request to pursue early discovery to identify the unnamed defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may pursue the requested early discovery intended to identify the unnamed defendant. The unidentified defendant and Verizon Fios are affected by the requested identification process, although the order does not name the defendant or itself authorize the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant for allegedly sharing its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent network. The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only by an Internet Protocol address.
Strike 3 Holdings asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required initial conference, so it could learn the defendant’s name and address. It also asked to delay any scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The court granted the application and asked the clerk to terminate the motion. Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred; the order concerned the requested early-discovery procedure.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-06473
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 17, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified Internet subscriber infringed its copyrights by using the BitTorrent file-sharing network. The complaint identified the defendant as “John Doe” because Strike 3 Holdings said it knew only the Internet Protocol address associated with the alleged activity. The plaintiff stated that Verizon Fios, the Internet service provider, maintains records that can connect an Internet Protocol address with a subscriber.
Request
Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking early, limited discovery. Specifically, it wanted to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Rule 26(f), in order to learn the defendant’s identity. It also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The plaintiff argued that early discovery was justified because it would present an initial showing of copyright infringement, make a specific discovery request, show that no alternative means existed to obtain the identity information, establish the information’s importance to the case, and show that the defendant had only a minimal expectation of privacy in the alleged transmission or distribution of copyrighted material.
Ruling
The court marked the application “GRANTED” and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The order therefore granted Strike 3 Holdings’ application to seek permission to pursue the requested third-party subpoena and to postpone the scheduling conference as requested. It did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement allegations or itself identify the defendant. Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.