Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Victor Marrero
- 1:25-cv-02005
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Marrero granted requests to file an early-subpoena motion and delay scheduling.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may file a motion seeking early discovery from Verizon Fios, and any initial scheduling conference will be postponed until the Doe defendant is identified and served. The order does not itself authorize service of the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant, known only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging that the defendant used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrights. Strike 3 said Verizon Fios could identify the subscriber assigned to that address.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to serve Verizon Fios with a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required initial discovery conference. It also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge Victor Marrero granted both requests. The order allowed Strike 3 to file the motion seeking permission for the subpoena and postponed any initial scheduling conference until the defendant is named and served; it did not itself authorize service of the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-02005
- Victor Marrero
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. According to Strike 3, the defendant’s Internet Protocol address had been used to infringe Strike 3’s copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. Strike 3 stated that Verizon Fios, the identified internet service provider, maintained records that could connect the Internet Protocol address to a customer.
Requests
Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the required Rule 26(f) discovery conference. Strike 3 also asked the court to postpone any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served. Strike 3 represented that its planned motion would address whether there was good cause for early discovery, including its asserted preliminary showing of copyright infringement, the specificity of the requested information, the lack of alternative ways to identify the defendant, the importance of the information, and the defendant’s assertedly limited privacy expectation.
Ruling
Judge Victor Marrero granted Strike 3’s request to file a motion seeking leave to file the third-party subpoena under Rule 26(d)(1). He also granted Strike 3’s request to adjourn any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference until the defendant is named and served. The order authorized the filing of the subpoena motion and postponed scheduling; it did not itself grant leave to serve the subpoena or decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.