Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-02010
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed Strike 3 to file a motion seeking ISP records to identify the defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may file a motion seeking early discovery from Verizon Fios to identify the unnamed defendant; the Doe defendant’s identity was not disclosed or determined in this order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant, identified only by an internet protocol address, alleging copyright infringement through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. The opinion says the defendant’s name and address were not known to Strike 3.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required discovery conference, so it could learn the defendant’s identity. It also asked to delay any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The court waived the pre-motion conference requirement and granted Strike 3 leave to file the subpoena motion, while directing the Clerk to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 7. Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide the copyright claim or authorize the subpoena itself in this order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-02010
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement case against a defendant identified as “John Doe.” According to the filing, Strike 3 knew the defendant only through an internet protocol (IP) address and did not know the defendant’s name or address. Strike 3 alleged that the IP address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network.
Request
Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking early discovery from Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider associated with the IP address. The requested discovery was intended to identify the Doe defendant before the parties held their required Rule 26(f) discovery conference. Strike 3 also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The filing argued that early discovery would be appropriate because Strike 3 expected to show an initial copyright-infringement claim, make a specific request, lack another way to obtain the defendant’s identity, need the information centrally to proceed, and face a defendant with only a limited privacy interest in the requested information.
Ruling
The court waived the pre-motion conference requirement and granted Strike 3 leave to file a motion for a third-party subpoena. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 7.
This order did not itself authorize service of the subpoena, identify the Doe defendant, or decide whether Strike 3 proved copyright infringement. The opinion also does not state that the court granted Strike 3’s separate request to postpone the initial scheduling conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.