Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-04669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas ordered limited steps to help identify the unnamed defendant before ordinary discovery and scheduling.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may pursue early discovery to identify the unnamed defendant through Spectrum. The Doe defendant’s identifying information may be sought, and the initial scheduling conference may be delayed until identification and service.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant for allegedly using the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrights. The company said it could identify the defendant only through an Internet Protocol address held by Spectrum, the Internet service provider.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion seeking permission to subpoena Spectrum before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. It also asked the court to postpone, or not schedule, the initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas marked the request “Ordered,” allowing the requested procedural steps according to the text provided. The order did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred or grant the subpoena itself.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-04669
- Kenneth Karas
- June 16, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant’s Internet Protocol address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. The company stated that Spectrum, the Internet service provider associated with the address, maintains records that could identify the subscriber assigned that address.
Requested relief
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery ordinarily cannot begin before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless the court allows it. Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum before that conference. It said the anticipated motion would show good cause, including a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, no alternative way to obtain the information, a central need for the information, and the defendant’s limited privacy expectation. Strike 3 also requested that any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference be postponed until the defendant was identified and served.
Ruling
The court marked the request “Ordered.” Based on the text provided, the court authorized Strike 3 to proceed with its requested motion concerning early discovery and to postpone the scheduling conference as requested. The text does not state that the court itself authorized service of the subpoena, rule on the merits of the copyright claim, or determine that the Doe defendant committed infringement. The ruling is therefore a procedural discovery order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.