Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant for alleged copyright infringement. According to the plaintiff’s letter, the defendant was known only by an Internet protocol address, and the plaintiff did not yet know the defendant’s name or address. The plaintiff alleged that the address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network.

Request

The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking early discovery. Specifically, it wanted to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios, the identified Internet service provider, to obtain information that could reveal the defendant’s identity. Rule 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the parties’ required planning conference unless the court permits it.

The plaintiff also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served. The letter argued that early discovery was justified because the plaintiff claimed copyright infringement, requested specific information, lacked another way to identify the defendant, needed the information centrally to proceed, and contended that the defendant had only a limited privacy interest in the alleged transmission or distribution of copyrighted material.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiff’s request to file its motion. It ordered Strike 3 Holdings to file that motion by May 16, 2025. The order did not itself authorize service of the subpoena; the text shows only that it authorized the plaintiff to seek that relief through a motion.

The court also adjourned, or postponed, the deadline for the parties to file their joint letter and proposed case-management plan without setting a new date. The opinion does not state that the court separately entered an order postponing an initial Rule 16 scheduling conference, although that relief was requested in the plaintiff’s letter.