Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.94.13.20
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:25-cv-01345
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 24
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Magistrate Judge Foster granted Strike 3's motions in all 33 cases to subpoena internet providers for alleged copyright infringers' identities, with privacy protections.
Thirty-three anonymous internet subscribers in Minnesota whose IP addresses were flagged by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC for alleged copyright infringement via BitTorrent file sharing. Their internet service providers — Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, and Spectrum — are required to notify subscribers and may be required to disclose subscriber names and addresses. Anyone who receives an ISP notification as a result of these subpoenas may be directly affected.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 33 separate copyright infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against unknown defendants identified only by their internet protocol (IP) addresses. Strike 3 alleges each defendant used BitTorrent — a peer-to-peer file-sharing technology — to illegally download and distribute Strike 3's copyrighted adult films, which Strike 3 detected through its proprietary monitoring system called VXN. Because Strike 3 cannot identify any defendant by name, it asked the court for permission to send legal demands (subpoenas) to each defendant's internet service provider (ISP) to obtain the subscriber's name and address before the normal discovery process begins.
The court applied a five-factor legal test drawn from Arista Records, LLC v. Doe (a federal appeals court decision) to decide whether this early, limited information-gathering was justified. The factors weighed were: whether Strike 3 stated a plausible copyright claim, whether the request was narrow, whether there was any other way to get the information, whether the information was necessary to proceed, and whether the defendants' privacy interests were outweighed. The court found all five factors favored allowing the subpoenas, while also acknowledging that the person who pays for an internet account is not necessarily the person who committed the alleged infringement — a concern the court addressed with protective measures.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted all 33 motions but imposed strict conditions to protect the unnamed defendants' privacy. Each ISP must notify its subscriber within 14 days of receiving a subpoena, and the subscriber then has 45 days to seek court protection or respond. Strike 3 may not publicly reveal any identifying information until the defendant has had a chance to ask the court to remain anonymous. Strike 3 must also file a status report in each case by September 23, 2025.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.94.13.20 · No. 0:25-cv-01345
- Patrick Schiltz
- July 28, 2025
Background
From April through June 2025, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 33 substantially identical copyright infringement lawsuits in the District of Minnesota. Each complaint names an anonymous "John Doe" defendant identified only by an IP address. Strike 3 distributes copyrighted adult films through adult websites and DVDs and alleges it used a proprietary infringement detection system called VXN to identify each IP address as having used the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol to download and redistribute Strike 3's copyrighted works without authorization.
Because Strike 3 cannot name or serve any defendant without first learning who controls each IP address, it filed ex parte motions (requests made to the court without the other party present, because the other party is unknown) in all 33 cases asking for permission to subpoena each defendant's ISP before the parties complete a Rule 26(f) conference — the standard pretrial meeting where parties discuss the scope of evidence-gathering. The identified ISPs are Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, and Spectrum.
This is not the first time these types of motions have come before this court. The opinion notes that at least seven prior omnibus orders addressed substantively identical motions filed by Strike 3 in 2023 and 2024, and that this order mirrors those prior orders.
Legal Standard: Good Cause for Expedited Discovery
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), parties ordinarily may not seek information from any source before completing the Rule 26(f) conference, unless a court orders otherwise. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not set a specific standard for when early discovery is allowed, but courts in the District of Minnesota apply a "good cause" standard that asks whether the need for expediting the discovery, in the interest of justice, outweighs any prejudice to the party receiving the demand.
The court applied the five-factor balancing test from Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010), previously adopted by district courts in this district in similar Strike 3 cases:
- The concreteness of the plaintiff's showing of a prima facie (sufficient on its face) claim of actionable harm
- The specificity of the discovery request
- The absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information
- The need for the subpoenaed information to advance the claim
- The objecting party's expectation of privacy
Application of the Factors
Factor 1 — Prima facie copyright claim
The court found Strike 3 adequately alleged copyright infringement. Copyright infringement requires (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying of original elements of the copyrighted work. Strike 3 alleged it owns the copyrighted works, that each defendant copied and distributed those works, and that Strike 3 did not authorize such distribution.
Factor 2 — Specificity
The subpoena is limited to requesting only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the relevant IP address during the time period of the alleged infringing activity. The court found this narrow scope satisfies the specificity requirement.
Factor 3 — No alternative means
The court noted that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a separate subpoena process for identifying infringers, but the Eighth Circuit has held that process does not apply when an ISP is merely acting as a conduit for data passing between internet users — which is the situation here. The court therefore found no practical alternative to filing a lawsuit and seeking judicial authorization for a subpoena.
Factor 4 — Necessity to advance the claim
Without each defendant's identity, the cases cannot move forward at all — Strike 3 cannot even serve the defendants with the complaint.
Factor 5 — Privacy interests
The court acknowledged the valid concern that an IP address subscriber is not necessarily the person who committed the alleged infringement, and that these cases involve adult content that could be embarrassing or sensitive. However, the court concluded that with appropriate privacy protections in place (detailed below), Strike 3's right to use the courts to pursue its copyright claims outweighs the privacy interest.
Protective Conditions Imposed by the Court
The court granted all 33 motions but attached the following conditions:
- Scope limitation: The subpoena may seek only the subscriber's name and address for the relevant IP address during the period of alleged infringing activity listed in Exhibit A to each complaint. - 60-day notice period: The subpoena must give each ISP at least 60 days before it is required to produce information. - ISP subscriber notification: Within 14 calendar days of receiving the subpoena, each ISP must notify its subscriber that their identity has been subpoenaed. - Subscriber response window: The subscriber then has 45 calendar days from the date of notice to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or both. - Order must accompany subpoena: Strike 3 must serve a copy of this omnibus order alongside any subpoena. The ISP must include a copy of the order in the notice to the subscriber. The ISP must certify when and that it gave this notice. - Non-disclosure of identity: Strike 3 may not publicly disclose any identifying information obtained through the subpoena until the defendant has had an opportunity to file a motion to proceed anonymously and the court rules on it. If the defendant does not file such a motion within 45 calendar days after their information is disclosed to Strike 3's counsel, this limited protective order expires. - Temporary sealing: If a defendant includes identifying information in a motion to proceed anonymously, that filing will be temporarily sealed until the court decides whether to keep it sealed. - Status reports: Strike 3 must file a status report in each of the 33 cases by September 23, 2025, describing the progress of the authorized discovery — but the status report may not include any information about any defendant's identity.
Disposition
All 33 ex parte motions for leave to serve third-party subpoenas prior to a Rule 26(f) conference are GRANTED, subject to the conditions set forth in the order.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.