Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Loretta Preska
- 1:25-cv-05666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Plaintiff requested early discovery, and Judge Preska’s text contains no ruling on that request.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unidentified defendant, whose identity the requested subpoena seeks to learn; the provided text does not show any court ruling affecting them.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked the court for permission to seek information identifying the unknown defendant from Verizon Fios before the usual discovery conference. The filing says the defendant is known only by an Internet Protocol address and is accused of using BitTorrent to infringe copyrights.
Strike 3 Holdings also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant is identified and served. It argued that early discovery was justified because its copyright claim was supported, the request would be specific, no other way existed to identify the defendant, the information was necessary, and the defendant had only a limited privacy interest.
The text is a letter from Strike 3 Holdings’ lawyer to Judge Preska, not a court ruling. Judge Preska’s text does not state that the request was granted, denied, or otherwise decided.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-05666
- Loretta Preska
- July 22, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The provided text is a letter from Strike 3 Holdings’ attorney making a pre-motion request. It does not contain an order or other ruling by the court.
Background
Strike 3 Holdings alleges that it owns copyrights to movies distributed through three subscription-based adult websites. It alleges that the unidentified defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe those copyrights. The defendant is identified in the filing as “John Doe” because Strike 3 Holdings says it knows only the Internet Protocol address associated with the alleged activity.
Requested Discovery
Strike 3 Holdings asks for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties’ required discovery conference. The requested subpoena would seek information that could identify the person assigned the relevant Internet Protocol address. The filing says Internet service providers keep records connecting Internet Protocol addresses with customers but may retain those records for only a short time.
Strike 3 Holdings also asks the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference, or not schedule one, until the defendant is identified and served.
Plaintiff’s Legal Argument
The filing states that courts may permit discovery before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference when there is good cause. It says Strike 3 Holdings will show five circumstances: a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, no available alternative way to obtain the information, a central need for the information, and a limited expectation of privacy by the defendant. These are arguments made in the filing; the provided text does not show that the court adopted them.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. The text does not state that Judge Preska granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on Strike 3 Holdings’ request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.