Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-01287
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe: Judge Netburn allowed early discovery to identify an anonymous subscriber in a copyright lawsuit.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain limited identifying information about John Doe through a subpoena to Verizon Fios. John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena or seek anonymity, while Verizon Fios must preserve and withhold the information according to the order’s deadlines.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns allegations that an unidentified subscriber distributed the company’s copyrighted adult movies. Strike 3 asked to obtain the subscriber’s name and address from internet provider Verizon Fios using a subpoena.
The court found good cause for discovery before the parties’ usual discovery conference. It allowed Strike 3 to subpoena only the subscriber’s name and current or permanent address connected to the listed Internet Protocol address, subject to notice and protections for the subscriber.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn granted the motion. The subscriber has 60 days after receiving notice to challenge or limit the subpoena or request anonymity, and Verizon Fios generally cannot disclose the information before that period ends or before the court resolves a timely challenge.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01287
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified only through the alleged Internet Protocol address 72.89.26.149. Strike 3 alleges that John Doe distributed its copyrighted adult movies in violation of the Copyright Act. Because Strike 3 did not know the defendant’s name or address, it moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference. The subpoena seeks identifying information from Verizon Fios, the internet service provider identified in the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court applied a flexible good-cause standard for early discovery. It considered whether Strike 3 had made a concrete initial showing of a potentially valid claim, whether the discovery request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed to advance the case, and the subscriber’s privacy expectations.
The court found that all factors favored Strike 3. It concluded that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement by describing its original works and providing a detailed analysis of alleged copying. It also found that the request was limited to the subscriber’s name and address, that Strike 3 had no reasonable alternative for identifying the defendant and serving the lawsuit, and that the subscriber had only a minimal expectation of privacy in the alleged sharing of copyrighted material.
Ruling and procedures
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 may immediately serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only John Doe’s name and current and/or permanent address associated with the specified Internet Protocol address. The subpoena must include the order and a notice to the defendant; Strike 3 may not request additional information such as an email address or telephone number.
The order also imposes protections for the unidentified subscriber. Strike 3 may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint unless the court allows it, although it may participate if the defendant initiates discussions. Verizon Fios must notify the subscriber within 60 days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber then has 60 days after receiving notice to move to quash or modify the subpoena or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Verizon Fios may not disclose identifying information before that 60-day period ends or before the court decides a timely motion, whichever is later. If no challenge is filed, Verizon Fios has 10 days after the 60-day period to produce the responsive information. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.