Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-01263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Subramanian directed termination of a request seeking early discovery to identify an unnamed copyright defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unnamed John Doe defendant, whose identity Strike 3 sought to obtain from Verizon Internet Services.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant, identified only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that the defendant used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrights. Strike 3 said it did not know the defendant’s name or address.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Verizon Internet Services before the parties’ required conference, so Verizon could identify the subscriber associated with the Internet address. Strike 3 also asked to delay or avoid the initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 7. The text does not state that the request was granted or denied. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on March 10, 2025.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01263
- Subramanian
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against a John Doe defendant. According to Strike 3’s filing, the defendant was identified only by an Internet Protocol address because the defendant’s name and address were not known. Strike 3 alleged that the address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network.
Requested discovery
Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking early discovery before the required Rule 26(f) conference. Specifically, it wanted to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Internet Services to obtain the identity of the subscriber associated with the Internet address. Strike 3 also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Strike 3 argued that early discovery would be justified because it intended to make a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, would seek specific information, had no other way to obtain the defendant’s identity, centrally needed that information, and believed the defendant had only a limited privacy interest in the transmission or distribution of copyrighted material.
Court action
The order states: “Clerk of Court is respectfully directed terminate the motion at ECF No. 7.” It does not state that the request was granted, denied, dismissed, or that permission to serve the subpoena was issued. The ruling concerns a discovery and scheduling request; the excerpt does not decide whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred or whether Strike 3 will prevail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.