Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Victor Marrero
- 1:25-cv-01998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Marrero granted requests to seek early discovery identifying the defendant and to delay the scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unidentified John Doe defendant; the order also concerns Spectrum as the internet service provider that may possess information identifying the defendant.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, called John Doe, alleging that the subscriber used BitTorrent to infringe its copyrights. The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only by an internet protocol address and that Spectrum, the internet provider, could identify the subscriber.
The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion seeking a subpoena to Spectrum before the parties’ required early case conference. It also asked the court to delay any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge Victor Marrero granted the plaintiff’s request to file the early-discovery motion and to delay any scheduled initial scheduling conference until the defendant is named and served. The order did not itself identify the defendant or state that the subpoena was issued.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01998
- Victor Marrero
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe the plaintiff’s copyrighted works. The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only by an internet protocol address and that Spectrum, the defendant’s internet service provider, maintained records that could connect that address to a subscriber’s identity.
Requests
The plaintiff asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested discovery was intended to identify the John Doe defendant. The plaintiff also requested that any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference be adjourned, or not scheduled, until the defendant was identified and served.
The plaintiff argued that early discovery was justified because it would present a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, make a specific request for information, lack another way to obtain the defendant’s identity, need the information to pursue the case, and involve a defendant with only a limited expectation of privacy. These were the plaintiff’s arguments; the order does not provide a separate merits determination of the alleged infringement.
Ruling
Judge Victor Marrero granted the plaintiff’s request to file a motion seeking leave to serve the third-party subpoena under Rule 26(d)(1). He also granted the request to adjourn any scheduled initial Rule 16 scheduling conference until the defendant was named and served. The order authorized the plaintiff to seek the subpoena; it did not itself identify the defendant or state that the subpoena had been issued.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns early discovery and scheduling rather than deciding whether copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.