Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.41.125.109

Background

This omnibus order addressed 51 substantially similar motions filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC in separate cases. The case involving IP address 47.41.125.109 is No. 25-cv-595. Strike 3 alleged that each John Doe defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution system to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without authorization. Strike 3 said its infringement-detection system identified the alleged activity but that it could identify each defendant only by an IP address.

Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on each defendant’s internet service provider before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested discovery was intended to identify the subscriber by name and address, allow Strike 3 to investigate the alleged infringement, and permit service of the lawsuit.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that discovery generally cannot begin before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the rules, the parties, or a court order allows it. Because the defendants’ identities were unknown, the court applied the good-cause standard used in similar cases in the District of Minnesota. That standard asks whether the need for early discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party.

The court applied five factors: whether Strike 3 showed a plausible claim of actionable harm; whether the discovery request was specific; whether other means existed to obtain the information; whether the information was needed for the case to proceed; and the defendant’s privacy expectation. The court concluded that expedited discovery was warranted because Strike 3 sufficiently alleged copyright infringement, sought only each subscriber’s name and address, had no alternative way to obtain the information, and could not proceed without identifying the defendants. The court also concluded that Strike 3’s interest in pursuing its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy interests when subject to the protections in the order.

The court expressly recognized that the subscriber assigned an IP address might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement and that the allegations involved sensitive and potentially embarrassing subject matter. The court therefore imposed a limited protective order.

Ruling

The court granted Strike 3’s motion in No. 25-cv-595. Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the internet service provider seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 47.41.125.109 during the periods identified in the complaint’s exhibit.

The subpoena must give the provider at least 60 days before production is required and may request only one category of documents identifying the particular subscriber. The provider must notify the subscriber within 14 calendar days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber then has 45 calendar days from the notice date to seek a protective order, file a response, or do both. No other discovery was authorized at that time.

Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced in response to the subpoena until the defendant has an opportunity to request permission to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. The order also required Strike 3 to file a status report in each of the 51 cases by June 6, 2025, without revealing any defendant’s identity. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster.