Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Astound Broadband LLC, an internet service provider, to identify John Doe, who was identified in the caption by the subscriber-assigned Internet Protocol address 65.78.6.66. Strike 3 sought the information so it could serve Doe with the lawsuit.

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to issue the subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). It found that Strike 3 had established a preliminary claim for copyright infringement, needed Doe’s identity to serve the lawsuit, and had no alternative way to determine Doe’s identity. The court also found good cause for a protective order because of the risk of mistaken identification and the resulting potential for annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

Ruling and procedures

The court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Astound Broadband and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 6. Strike 3 may seek Doe’s true name and current and permanent address, but may not subpoena email addresses or telephone numbers.

Astound Broadband must notify Doe within 60 days after being served with the subpoena and provide Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the attached notice. Doe has 30 days after service of the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. Astound Broadband may not disclose identifying information before that period ends. If Doe or Astound Broadband files a motion to quash, Astound Broadband may not disclose information unless and until the court directs it to resume production. If no timely challenge is filed, Astound Broadband has 10 days to produce the requested information.

Astound Broadband must preserve the subpoenaed information while any timely motion to quash is pending. It must confer with Strike 3 before charging production costs and may provide a billing summary and cost report if it charges for production. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights as stated in its complaint.

Effect of the order

This is a discovery order, not a decision on whether John Doe actually infringed copyright. It allows Strike 3 to pursue information needed to identify and serve the anonymous defendant while giving Doe an opportunity to challenge disclosure or request anonymous treatment.

The attached notice contains references that do not match the main order: it identifies a different Internet Protocol address, 70.18.60.5, a different case number, 25 Civ. 2008 (JHR), and an order dated June 17, 2025. The opinion text does not explain these discrepancies. The signature block also appears to contain the name “Loar,” while the opinion identifies Jennifer H. Rearden as the district judge and the notice refers to Judge Rearden.