Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-01282
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel granted an application concerning early discovery and adjourned the scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s request for early discovery and the scheduling of the case were affected. The unidentified John Doe defendant’s identity remained unresolved in the order.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings sued an unidentified internet subscriber, known only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging copyright infringement through the BitTorrent network. The plaintiff said it needed information from the subscriber’s internet provider to learn the defendant’s identity.
The plaintiff asked to file a motion seeking permission to serve an early subpoena on Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., before the parties’ required initial conference. It also asked to postpone the initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge P. Kevin Castel granted the application and adjourned the conference from April 28, 2025, to June 27, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The order does not separately state that the court authorized service of the subpoena itself.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01282
- P. Castel
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement case against a defendant identified as John Doe. According to the plaintiff’s filing, the defendant’s name and address were not known, but the plaintiff had identified an internet protocol address associated with alleged infringement through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. The plaintiff stated that the internet service provider, Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., could use its records to identify the subscriber assigned that address.
Requests
The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. Rule 26(d)(1) generally restricts discovery before that conference unless the court orders otherwise. The plaintiff also requested that the initial Rule 16 scheduling conference be adjourned until the defendant was named and served. The filing described the proposed discovery as limited discovery directed to the internet service provider to obtain the defendant’s identity.
Ruling
The order states, “Application GRANTED.” It adjourned the initial conference from April 28, 2025, to June 27, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The order does not separately state that the court granted leave to serve the subpoena or that it decided the proposed discovery motion on the merits. Judge P. Kevin Castel signed the order on March 20, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.