Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-05661
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe: Judge Engelmayer allowed early discovery to identify Doe in a copyright case, with privacy protections.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain limited identifying information from Verizon Fios about John Doe, while Doe receives notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena or proceed anonymously. Verizon Fios must follow the notice, withholding, and production procedures in the order.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 alleged that an unidentified defendant downloaded and distributed 24 of its copyrighted movies using BitTorrent. The movies contained pornographic material.
Strike 3 asked to obtain early discovery from Verizon Fios, the internet service provider associated with the relevant Internet Protocol address, to learn Doe’s name and address. The court found that Strike 3 had shown a plausible copyright claim, requested limited information, had no practical alternative for identifying Doe, needed the information to serve Doe, and had an interest that outweighed Doe’s privacy interest.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the motion and allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena seeking only Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. The order gives Doe 60 days after notice to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously, and protects the information from public disclosure unless the court later orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-05661
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 23, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant, John Doe, under federal copyright law. Strike 3 alleged that Doe downloaded and distributed 24 of Strike 3’s copyrighted motion pictures through the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. The opinion states that the movies contained pornographic material.
Strike 3 asked for permission to seek discovery before the parties’ usual early-case conference. Specifically, it sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider associated with the Internet Protocol address at issue. The subpoena sought Doe’s name and physical address so Strike 3 could identify and serve the defendant.
Court’s analysis
The court applied a standard requiring reasonableness and good cause, considering five factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
- Whether the plaintiff made a concrete initial showing of a legally actionable claim.
- Whether the discovery request was specific.
- Whether there was another way to obtain the information.
- Whether the information was needed to advance the case.
- The defendant’s expectation of privacy.
The court found that all five factors favored Strike 3. It held that Strike 3 had made an initial showing of copyright infringement by identifying the copyrighted works and describing the alleged unauthorized copying and distribution, including the use of BitTorrent and forensic evidence. The court also found the request narrow because it sought only the name and address associated with the relevant Internet Protocol address.
The court determined that BitTorrent is largely anonymous and that the internet service provider was the only entity able to connect the Internet Protocol address with the user’s identity. Without the subpoena, Strike 3 would be unable to serve Doe and pursue the case. Although disclosure concerning the alleged sharing of adult movies could cause embarrassment, the court concluded that Strike 3’s interest in identifying Doe outweighed Doe’s privacy interest.
Ruling and protections
Judge Engelmayer granted Strike 3’s motion. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking only John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 may not request additional information, including an email address or telephone number.
The court also issued protective procedures because of the risk of mistaken identification, embarrassment, or other undue burden. Verizon Fios must provide Doe with the subpoena, the court’s order, and a notice within 60 days after being served. Doe then has 60 days after service of the subpoena to challenge it, including by asking the court to quash or modify it, or to request permission to litigate anonymously. If Doe contests the subpoena, Verizon Fios must not release the contact information to Strike 3 until the court rules on the challenge.
If neither Doe nor Verizon Fios contests the subpoena within the 60-day period, Verizon Fios has 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3. Strike 3 may use any information disclosed through the subpoena only to protect the rights asserted in its complaint. The court directed the clerk to close the motion at docket 6.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.