Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant for alleged copyright infringement. The opinion text says that the defendant’s name and address were not known to Strike 3. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network and that the internet protocol address associated with the alleged activity had been assigned by Verizon Fios.

Requested discovery

Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the required Rule 26(f) conference. Strike 3 said the subpoena would seek information identifying the Doe defendant. It also requested that any initial scheduling conference under Rule 16 be postponed until the defendant was identified and served.

The request letter described the factors that Strike 3 intended to address in its motion, including a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, the lack of another way to obtain the information, the importance of the information, and the defendant’s limited expectation of privacy. The opinion text does not show a ruling on the merits of the copyright claim or a ruling granting the subpoena itself.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the request to file a motion seeking leave to file a third-party subpoena under Rule 26(d)(1). The court also adjourned any Rule 16 scheduling conferences until further notice. The clerk was directed to give notice of the motion at ECF No. 6.

Effect of the order

This was a discovery and scheduling ruling. It allowed Strike 3 to pursue a motion for early third-party discovery but did not, in the text provided, authorize service of the subpoena or identify the Doe defendant.