Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-04676
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas granted permission to seek early discovery identifying the defendant and delay the scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek permission to obtain early third-party discovery aimed at identifying the John Doe defendant, and the initial scheduling conference is delayed or not scheduled until the defendant is identified and served.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant, known only by an Internet Protocol address, claiming copyright infringement involving the BitTorrent file-sharing network.
The plaintiff asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required initial conference, so it could learn the defendant’s name and address. It also asked to delay or avoid the initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The court granted the request. Judge Kenneth M. Karas therefore allowed the plaintiff to pursue filing that early-discovery motion and granted the requested scheduling-conference adjournment. The text does not show a ruling on whether the subpoena itself was ultimately authorized.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-04676
- Kenneth Karas
- June 13, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. The plaintiff alleged that the Internet Protocol address assigned to the defendant had been used to infringe the plaintiff’s copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. The plaintiff identified Verizon Fios as the Internet service provider that might be able to connect the Internet Protocol address to a customer.
Request
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), the plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion seeking early discovery before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed discovery was a third-party subpoena to Verizon Fios seeking information that could identify the defendant. The plaintiff also asked the court to adjourn any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference, or not schedule one, until the defendant was identified and served.
Ruling
The court’s endorsement states, “Granted,” followed by “So Ordered” and the date. The ruling granted the plaintiff’s pre-motion request to file a motion seeking permission for the early subpoena and granted the request concerning the initial scheduling conference. The opinion text does not state that the subpoena itself was authorized, and it does not describe any decision on the underlying copyright-infringement claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.