Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.242.101.143

Background

From April through June 2025, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 33 copyright infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against unknown defendants, each identified only by an IP address. Strike 3 distributes copyrighted adult films through adult websites and DVDs. It alleges each John Doe defendant used BitTorrent — a peer-to-peer file distribution protocol — to illegally download and distribute its copyrighted works without authorization.

Strike 3 states it operates a proprietary infringement detection system called VXN, which monitored and detected infringing activity linked to specific IP addresses. Strike 3 was unable to identify any defendant by name but alleged each defendant's internet service provider (ISP) could correlate the IP address with a subscriber's identity.

The 33 cases were assigned to the same judicial officers (District Judge Patrick J. Schilten and Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster) and involved nearly identical complaints, differing only in the IP address, ISP, and number of alleged infringing works per defendant. ISPs named across the cases include Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, and Spectrum.

Legal Standard: Expedited Discovery Before Rule 26(f) Conference

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), parties ordinarily may not seek discovery before holding a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference — a mandatory meeting between the parties to plan discovery. Courts may, however, allow early ('expedited') discovery by court order when good cause exists.

Because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not adopted a specific test for expedited discovery, courts in the District of Minnesota apply a 'good cause' standard. Here, the court applied the five-factor test from Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010):

Note on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): The DMCA provides a separate process for copyright holders to subpoena ISPs for infringer identities. However, the Eighth Circuit has held that this DMCA process does not apply when an ISP acts only as a conduit for data passing between users (rather than storing infringing content). In re Charter Communications, 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit endorsed the John Doe lawsuit approach Strike 3 used here as the proper alternative. Id. at 775 n.3.

Application of the Five Factors

Factor 1: Concreteness of the Copyright Claim The elements of copyright infringement are (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) unauthorized copying of original elements. The court found Strike 3 sufficiently alleged it owns the copyrighted works, that each defendant copied and distributed them, and that Strike 3 did not authorize this activity.

Factor 2: Specificity of the Discovery Request The subpoena is limited to one category of information: the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the relevant IP address during the specific period of alleged infringing activity. The court found this sufficiently specific and narrow.

Factor 3: Absence of Alternative Means Because the DMCA process is unavailable (the ISPs here act only as conduits), the John Doe lawsuit followed by an ISP subpoena is the only available mechanism. No alternative means exists.

Factor 4: Necessity to Advance the Claim The cases cannot proceed — and defendants cannot be served — without first identifying who they are. The subpoenaed information is essential.

Factor 5: Privacy Expectations The court expressly acknowledged a significant risk: the subscriber assigned to an IP address may not be the actual infringer, and these cases involve adult film content that could cause embarrassment and reputational harm to a wrongly identified subscriber. The court found, however, that with appropriate privacy safeguards in place, Strike 3's right to use the courts to enforce its copyright claims outweighs the defendants' privacy interests.

Privacy Safeguards (Protective Order)

To address privacy concerns, the court issued a limited protective order with the following requirements:

- 60-day notice before production: The subpoena must give the ISP at least 60 days before any documents must be produced. - ISP notification to subscriber: Within 14 calendar days of receiving the subpoena, the ISP must notify the subscriber that their identity has been subpoenaed. - Subscriber's 45-day window: The subscriber then has 45 calendar days to seek a protective order, file any responsive pleading, or both. - Copy of court order: Strike 3 must serve this court order with any subpoena; the ISP must provide the order to the subscriber with the required notice; and when producing responsive information, the ISP must certify that it notified the subscriber and state when it did so. - No public disclosure by Strike 3: Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the subscriber's identity until the defendant has had an opportunity to file a motion to proceed anonymously in the litigation, and until the court rules on any such motion. If the defendant does not file such a motion within 45 calendar days after their information is disclosed to Strike 3's counsel, this protective restriction expires. - Temporary sealing: If a defendant includes identifying information in a request to proceed anonymously, the court will provisionally file that request under seal until it 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 not disclosing any defendant's identity.

Disposition

The court GRANTED all 33 ex parte motions for leave to serve third-party subpoenas prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, subject to the conditions and privacy safeguards described above.

Prior History

The court noted this is the eighth such omnibus order it has issued addressing substantively similar Strike 3 motions filed in the District of Minnesota since 2023. The court stated this order mirrors its previous omnibus orders.