Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:25-cv-03196
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Oetken allowed limited expedited discovery while protecting Doe’s privacy.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant John Doe, and Verizon Fios. The order permits Strike 3 to seek Doe’s identifying information but gives Doe and Verizon Fios time and procedures to challenge or delay disclosure.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 alleged that an unidentified person distributed its copyrighted movies, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios for the person’s name and address.
The court found good cause for some immediate discovery because Strike 3 could not identify or serve the person without it. But the court noted that the subscriber connected to an Internet address might not be the actual infringer, and that the movies’ pornographic content created a risk of mistaken identification and pressured settlements.
Judge James Oetken allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and addresses, but required notice to Doe, a 60-day period to challenge the subpoena or seek anonymous litigation, and limits on using any information disclosed.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-03196
- James Oetken
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that unidentified Defendant John Doe distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted movies in violation of the Copyright Act. The movies contain pornographic material. Strike 3 asked for permission to obtain expedited discovery—early discovery before the usual schedule—from Verizon Fios, an Internet service provider, to learn John Doe’s name and address.
Court’s reasoning
The court found good cause for some expedited discovery because Strike 3 would not otherwise be able to identify John Doe or serve him with the lawsuit. The court explained that Verizon Fios was effectively prohibited from disclosing Doe’s identity without a court-ordered subpoena under the cited federal communications-privacy law.
The court also emphasized that the subscriber assigned to an Internet address is not necessarily the person who infringed a copyright. Someone else with access to the connection, such as a child, neighbor, or houseguest, could have been responsible. The court found that this created a real risk of falsely identifying a defendant and pressuring that person into an unwarranted or unfair settlement. The pornographic subject matter increased those privacy and coercion concerns.
Order
The court allowed Strike 3 to conduct immediate discovery from Verizon Fios through a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena seeks John Doe’s name and current and permanent address and must include a copy of the order.
Strike 3 must immediately serve the order on Verizon Fios, and Verizon Fios must serve it on John Doe by a reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to Doe’s last known address. John Doe has 60 days after service of the order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to proceed anonymously. Verizon Fios may not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that period ends. If Doe or Verizon Fios files a motion, disclosure must wait until the court resolves the issues and instructs Verizon Fios to resume producing the information.
If no timely challenge is filed, Verizon Fios has 10 days after the 60-day period to produce responsive information. Verizon Fios must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending, may not charge in advance, and may provide a billing summary if it charges production costs. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the Clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 6.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.