Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-03238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed early subpoena discovery to be requested and adjourned the scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may file a motion seeking early third-party subpoena discovery, while the unidentified Doe defendant’s identity remains unknown and the initial scheduling conference is postponed.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, identified only by an Internet Protocol address, alleging copyright infringement through the BitTorrent network. It asked to seek information from Verizon Fios to learn the defendant’s identity.
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’ request to file a motion seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the required discovery conference. The court also adjourned the initial scheduling conference until further order, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 6.
Judge Nelson S. Roman entered this procedural order on April 25, 2025. The order did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred or whether the defendant was liable.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-03238
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement case against a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe its copyrighted works. The defendant was identified in the case only by an Internet Protocol address assigned by Verizon Fios.
The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion seeking early discovery from Verizon Fios. Early discovery is information-gathering before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed discovery would seek records that could identify the subscriber associated with the Internet Protocol address. The plaintiff also asked the court to postpone the initial Rule 16 scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Court’s Action
The court granted the plaintiff’s request to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court also adjourned the initial Rule 16 scheduling conference. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 6.
This order addressed the plaintiff’s request for permission to pursue discovery and scheduling relief. It did not decide the merits of the copyright-infringement allegations, determine the defendant’s identity, or rule on whether the requested subpoena would ultimately be issued.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.