Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-02007
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Torres granted permission to subpoena the internet provider for the anonymous defendant’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain limited identifying information about the anonymous defendant from Verizon Online LLC under the ordered subpoena procedures. John Doe may challenge the subpoena or request anonymity within the stated deadlines, and the internet provider must preserve and withhold the information as required by the order.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 alleged that the unidentified subscriber assigned internet protocol address 173.62.30.218 illegally downloaded and distributed its copyrighted adult movies. Strike 3 knew the internet address but not the subscriber’s name or address.
The court allowed Strike 3 to seek that information from the subscriber’s internet provider before the parties’ usual discovery conference. The court found that Strike 3 had adequately shown possible copyright infringement, requested only limited information, had no other practical way to identify the subscriber, and needed the information to continue the case.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the motion and set procedures protecting the subscriber. The provider must notify the subscriber, who has 60 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. The provider generally cannot release the information until that period ends or the court decides any timely challenge.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-02007
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe, the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 173.62.30.218, illegally downloaded and distributed its copyrighted motion pictures. Strike 3 said it could identify the internet address but did not know the defendant’s name or address. It asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Online LLC, identified as the defendant’s internet service provider, to obtain that identifying information.
Legal standard and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents parties from seeking discovery before the required conference between the parties unless the court permits early discovery. Judge Torres applied a flexible reasonableness and good-cause standard, considering whether Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, whether its request was specific, whether other ways to obtain the information existed, whether the information was needed to advance the case, and the defendant’s privacy interests.
The court found that all five factors supported early discovery. Strike 3 described its original copyrighted works and provided details about the alleged copying, including the dates and times of the alleged infringements. The requested discovery was limited to the defendant’s name and current and/or permanent address. The court accepted Strike 3’s position that the internet provider was the only entity able to connect the internet address to a subscriber. The court also found that without the subpoena Strike 3 could not serve the defendant or continue pursuing the action.
The court recognized that internet subscribers have a limited expectation of privacy in sharing copyrighted material. To address the risk of mistaken identification and possible annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden, the court ordered protective procedures and notice to the defendant.
Ruling and procedures
Judge Torres granted Strike 3’s motion. Strike 3 may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the internet provider for the name and current and/or permanent address associated with the specified internet address. The subpoena may not seek additional information, including an email address or telephone number, and must include the court’s order and the attached notice to the defendant.
The internet provider has 60 days after receiving the subpoena to notify the defendant and provide the subpoena, the order, and the notice. The defendant then has 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena and may also ask to proceed anonymously. If the defendant challenges the subpoena, the provider must not release the information until the court rules on the challenge. If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 additional days to disclose the responsive information. Any disclosed information may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.