Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-03696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman considered a request for early discovery to identify an unnamed copyright defendant, but the provided text omits the ruling.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe defendant, and the defendant’s Internet service provider, Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to learn the identity of an unnamed defendant known only by an Internet Protocol address. The company alleges that the defendant used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrighted works.
Strike 3 Holdings asked permission to file a request for a subpoena to the defendant’s Internet service provider, Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., before the parties’ required early case-management conference. The company also asked to postpone that conference until the defendant could be identified and served.
The document bears Judge Nelson Stephen Roman’s “SO ORDERED” signature, but the provided text does not state whether the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved. The exact ruling therefore cannot be determined from this text.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-03696
- Nelson Roman
- May 22, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed the matter against a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. The plaintiff stated that it owned three subscription-based adult websites and the copyrights to the movies distributed through those websites. It alleged that the Doe defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to directly infringe its copyrighted works and that the defendant was identifiable only through an Internet Protocol address.
Requested discovery
The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on the defendant’s Internet service provider, Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. The requested discovery was intended to obtain the subscriber’s identity from the provider’s records. The plaintiff also requested that any initial scheduling conference under Rule 16 be adjourned, or not scheduled, until the defendant was identified and served.
The plaintiff argued that good cause would support early discovery. It said it would present an initial showing of copyright infringement, make a specific discovery request, show that no alternative means existed to obtain the information, establish the central importance of the information, and show that the defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy.
Ruling
The document includes an “SO ORDERED” notation and the signature of Judge Nelson Stephen Roman. However, the provided opinion text does not include an express statement granting, denying, or otherwise disposing of the plaintiff’s request. The precise court action cannot be determined from the supplied text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.