Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-06472
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman granted the request to seek discovery identifying the unknown defendant before the scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may pursue a motion for early discovery aimed at identifying the unknown defendant through the defendant’s internet service provider. The unidentified defendant’s scheduling conference may be delayed until identification and service.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant, known only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging copyright infringement through the BitTorrent network. It said the defendant’s internet service provider, Optimum Fiber, could identify the subscriber.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to issue a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. It also asked to delay any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed as Electronic Case Filing No. 6. The text grants permission to file the discovery motion; it does not itself state that the subpoena was authorized.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-06472
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 17, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as “John Doe” because the defendant’s name and address were not known. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe its copyrighted works. According to the request, the defendant was associated with an Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned by Optimum Fiber, the internet service provider.
Strike 3 stated that the provider’s records could connect the IP address to the subscriber, but that internet service providers generally retain those records for only a short time. Strike 3 therefore sought early discovery to learn the defendant’s identity.
Request
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery ordinarily cannot be served before the parties hold a Rule 26(f) conference unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Optimum Fiber before that conference. It also asked the court to adjourn any initial scheduling conference, or not schedule one, until the defendant was identified and served.
Strike 3 represented that its forthcoming motion would show good cause, including a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, no alternative way to obtain the identity information, a central need for that information, and a minimal expectation of privacy.
Ruling
The court marked the request “GRANTED” and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion identified as Electronic Case Filing No. 6. The opinion text grants the request to file a motion seeking leave for the third-party subpoena and to address the scheduling conference. It does not expressly state that the subpoena itself was authorized at this stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.