Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-01284
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter received a request for early discovery to identify the defendant, but the text does not show a ruling.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC seeks information from Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. to identify the unnamed defendant; the provided text does not show any ruling affecting those requests.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns a request by Strike 3 Holdings to learn the identity of an unnamed internet subscriber accused of copyright infringement. The plaintiff says it knows the person only by an internet protocol address.
Strike 3 Holdings asks for permission to seek a subpoena to Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., before the parties hold their usual early case-management meeting. The subpoena would seek subscriber information linked to the internet protocol address. The plaintiff also asks to delay, or not schedule, that meeting until the defendant is identified and served.
The filing identifies Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. The provided text does not state whether the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved; it appears to be the plaintiff’s request and supporting argument rather than a clear ruling.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01284
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed John Doe defendant. The plaintiff states that it owns three subscription-based adult websites and the copyrights to the movies distributed through those websites. It alleges that the Doe defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe its copyrighted works.
The plaintiff says it knows the defendant only through an internet protocol address assigned by an internet service provider. It identifies Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. as the provider and says the provider’s records may connect that address to a customer. The plaintiff also states that providers generally keep these records for only a short time.
Requested Discovery
The filing is a pre-motion request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). Strike 3 Holdings asks for permission to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the required Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed discovery would seek information from the internet service provider to identify the Doe defendant.
The plaintiff argues that good cause exists for early discovery. It says it will show a preliminary claim of copyright infringement, make a specific discovery request, demonstrate that no alternative means can provide the information, establish that the information is central to the case, and show that the defendant has only a limited expectation of privacy in the alleged transmission or distribution of copyrighted material.
Strike 3 Holdings also asks the court to adjourn any scheduled initial Rule 16 scheduling conference, or not schedule one, until the defendant is identified and served.
Disposition
The text provided does not contain an express ruling on the request. It does not say that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request for permission to file the early-discovery motion or the request concerning the scheduling conference. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. is identified in the filing and in its signature block, but the provided text does not state a disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.