Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:25-cv-01276
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Intellectual PropertyDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Failla permitted a motion for early subpoena discovery and adjourned scheduling until Doe is named and served.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may file a motion seeking early discovery from Verizon Fios to identify the Doe defendant. The unidentified Doe defendant’s identity remains unresolved, and any initial scheduling conference is postponed until Doe is named and served.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, called Doe, alleging that the subscriber infringed its copyrights through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Strike 3 said it knew only the subscriber’s internet protocol address and that Verizon Fios could identify the subscriber.

Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. It also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until Doe was identified and served.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the request to file the subpoena motion, ordered Strike 3 to file it by March 25, 2025, and adjourned the initial scheduling conference until Doe is named and served. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01276
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Mar. 4, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against an unidentified defendant designated as Doe. 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 infringe its copyrighted works.

Strike 3 said it knew the defendant only through an internet protocol address assigned by an internet service provider. It identified Verizon Fios as the provider that could potentially use its assignment records to identify the subscriber associated with that address. The opinion states that Strike 3 alleged the provider’s records might be kept for only a short period.

Request

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery generally cannot begin before the parties hold a Rule 26(f) conference unless the court permits it. Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before that conference. Strike 3 also requested that any initial scheduling conference under Rule 16 be postponed until Doe was named and served.

Strike 3 represented that its forthcoming motion would address the factors courts consider when deciding whether to allow early discovery to identify an anonymous copyright defendant, including a preliminary showing of infringement, a specific discovery request, the lack of other ways to obtain the information, the importance of the information, and the defendant’s limited privacy expectation.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Strike 3’s request. The court permitted Strike 3 to file a motion seeking leave to file a third-party subpoena under Rule 26(d)(1) and ordered it to file that motion by March 25, 2025. The order did not itself authorize service of the subpoena.

The court also adjourned, without setting a new date, any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference until the defendant is named and served. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 5.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.