Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-01267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel so-ordered a request concerning early subpoena discovery and a scheduling conference, without deciding infringement.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unidentified John Doe defendant were affected. The requested discovery would have involved Spectrum, the internet service provider identified in the letter.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, called John Doe, alleging that the subscriber used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrights. Strike 3 said it knew the person only through an internet protocol address and that Spectrum, the internet service provider, could identify the subscriber.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Spectrum before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. It also asked to postpone the initial scheduling conference until the defendant could be identified and served. The letter argued that early discovery was justified because Strike 3 expected to show a basic copyright claim, had made a specific request, lacked another way to learn the defendant’s identity, needed the information, and believed the defendant had only a limited privacy interest in the alleged infringement.
Judge P. Kevin Castel endorsed the submission “SO ORDERED.” The provided text does not clearly state whether the court granted each requested action or merely approved the request to seek that relief; it does not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01267
- P. Castel
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified only as “John Doe.” The plaintiff said it owns three subscription-based adult websites and the copyrights to the movies distributed through those websites. It alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to directly infringe its copyrighted works. The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only by an internet protocol (IP) address assigned by the defendant’s internet service provider, Spectrum.
Requested relief
The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking early third-party discovery from Spectrum, before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed discovery would seek information identifying the subscriber associated with the IP address. The plaintiff also asked to postpone the initial Rule 16 scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The plaintiff argued that good cause supported early discovery. It said it would make an initial showing of copyright infringement, submit a specific discovery request, show that no alternative source for the identity information existed, establish a central need for the information, and demonstrate that the defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy. The letter cited decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
Court action and limits of the text
The submission bears Judge P. Kevin Castel’s endorsement, “SO ORDERED.” The provided opinion text does not state an express ruling such as “granted,” “denied,” or “granted in part and denied in part,” and it does not clearly identify whether the court approved the early-discovery request, the request to file a motion seeking that discovery, the request to postpone the scheduling conference, or all of them. The text does not decide the alleged copyright infringement claim or otherwise determine the defendant’s liability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.