Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-09959
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas ordered discovery-related relief to help identify the anonymous defendant in a copyright case.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unidentified Doe defendant, as well as Optimum Online as the Internet service provider targeted for identifying information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified Doe defendant for allegedly infringing its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Strike 3 said it knew only the defendant’s Internet Protocol address and believed the Internet service provider, Optimum Online, could identify the subscriber.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion seeking permission to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties’ required conference about discovery. It also asked to delay any initial scheduling conference until the defendant could be identified and served.
The document ends with the court’s notation “Ordered.” Judge Kenneth M. Karas therefore ordered the requested discovery-related step, but the text does not state that the subpoena itself was issued or that the copyright claims were decided.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-09959
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 14, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against a John Doe defendant whose 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 directly infringe its copyrighted works.
Strike 3 said that the defendant was known only by an Internet Protocol address assigned by an Internet service provider. It identified Optimum Online as the provider that could potentially match the address to a customer. According to Strike 3, providers keep records connecting IP addresses to customers but may retain those records only briefly.
Requested relief
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), Strike 3 requested permission to file a motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena would seek information from Optimum Online to identify the Doe defendant. Strike 3 also requested that any initial scheduling conference under Rule 16 be adjourned, or not scheduled, until the defendant was named and served.
Strike 3 represented that its anticipated motion would show good cause for early discovery. It cited the factors described in the filing: a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, no alternative way to obtain the information, a central need for the information, and a minimal expectation of privacy in the requested information.
Court action
The filing ends with the notation “Ordered.” The text does not include a separate explanation of the court’s reasoning, and it does not expressly state that a subpoena was issued. Based on the notation, the court ordered the requested discovery-related step. The text does not report a ruling on the merits of Strike 3’s copyright-infringement claims.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order concerning early discovery and scheduling, rather than a decision on whether copyright infringement occurred. The ruling is classified as a procedural order because it concerns obtaining information to identify an unnamed defendant before the ordinary discovery conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.