Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.65.121.67
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:25-cv-02382
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 24
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Magistrate Judge Foster granted Strike 3's motions in 33 copyright cases to subpoena internet providers for anonymous defendants' identities before normal discovery begins.
Individuals who are subscribers to internet service providers (Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, and Spectrum) in Minnesota who have been identified only by their IP addresses as alleged defendants in copyright infringement cases brought by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. These individuals may have their names and addresses disclosed to Strike 3 unless they seek a protective order. Also affected are the ISPs themselves, which must comply with subpoenas and notify their subscribers.
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 individuals identified only by their internet protocol (IP) addresses. Strike 3 alleges each defendant used a peer-to-peer file sharing system called BitTorrent to illegally download and distribute Strike 3's copyrighted adult films, and that Strike 3's proprietary detection system (called VXN) captured the IP addresses involved. Because Strike 3 cannot identify the defendants by name, it asked the court for permission to send legal demands (subpoenas) to each defendant's internet service provider (ISP) before the normal pretrial exchange of information — called a Rule 26(f) conference — takes place.
The court applied a 'good cause' standard drawn from a federal appeals court case called Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, weighing five factors: whether Strike 3 stated a real legal claim, how specific the information request is, whether there are other ways to get the information, whether the information is necessary for the case to move forward, and the privacy interests of the defendants. The court acknowledged a key concern: the subscriber linked to an IP address may not be the actual infringer, and these cases involve potentially embarrassing subject matter. To address this, the court issued a protective order with specific conditions meant to safeguard defendants' privacy during the process.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted all 33 motions, but with important limits and privacy protections. Each subpoena is restricted to asking only for the subscriber's name and address. ISPs must give defendants at least 45 days' notice and an opportunity to seek their own protective order or challenge the subpoena. Strike 3 is barred from publicly disclosing any defendant's identity until that defendant has had a chance to ask the court to proceed anonymously. 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 73.65.121.67 · No. 0:25-cv-02382
- Patrick Schiltz
- July 28, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC ('Strike 3') distributes copyrighted adult films through websites and DVDs. Between April and June 2025, Strike 3 filed 33 nearly identical copyright infringement lawsuits in the District of Minnesota against unnamed 'John Doe' defendants identified only by IP addresses. Strike 3 alleges it operates a proprietary infringement detection system called VXN, which identified each IP address as having downloaded and distributed Strike 3's copyrighted works via BitTorrent — a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol that allows users to distribute files across the internet.
Because Strike 3 cannot identify any defendant beyond an IP address, it filed ex parte motions (one-sided requests made without the opposing party present, since the defendants' identities are unknown) in all 33 cases asking for court permission to issue Rule 45 subpoenas — legally enforceable demands for information — to each defendant's ISP before the normal pretrial discovery process begins. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), parties generally cannot seek discovery before the parties have held a Rule 26(f) planning conference, except by court order.
Legal Standard Applied
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not set a specific standard for when expedited discovery (discovery before the normal schedule) is appropriate. Courts in the District of Minnesota typically apply a 'good cause' standard, and for cases like these they have used the five-factor test from Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010):
- The concreteness of the plaintiff's showing of a prima facie (sufficient on its face) claim;
- The specificity of the discovery request;
- The absence of alternative means to obtain the information;
- The need for the information to advance the claim; and
- The privacy expectations of the party whose information is sought.
This court noted it has issued seven prior omnibus orders in substantially similar Strike 3 cases from 2023–2024, and that this order mirrors those prior orders.
Analysis of the Five Arista Records Factors
Factor 1 — Prima facie copyright claim
Copyright infringement requires (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying of original elements of the work. The court found Strike 3 sufficiently alleged ownership of copyrighted works, that each defendant copied and distributed those works, and that Strike 3 did not authorize the distribution.
Factor 2 — Specificity of the request
The subpoenas would seek only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the relevant IP address during the alleged infringing period — a narrow and specific request.
Factor 3 — Absence of alternative means
The court noted that while the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a subpoena procedure for copyright holders to identify infringers through ISPs, the Eighth Circuit held in In re Charter Communications, 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005) that this DMCA procedure does not apply when an ISP acts only as a conduit for data between internet users — which is the situation here. The Eighth Circuit in that case endorsed the 'John Doe' lawsuit approach Strike 3 is using.
Factor 4 — Necessity to advance the claim
The case cannot proceed at all without identifying the defendants.
Factor 5 — Privacy expectations
The court expressly acknowledged that the subscriber linked to an IP address may not be the actual infringer, and that these cases involve sensitive and potentially embarrassing subject matter (adult films). The court concluded that with appropriate privacy protections in place, Strike 3's right to pursue its copyright claims through the courts outweighs the defendants' privacy interests.
Ruling and Protective Order Conditions
Magistrate Judge Foster granted all 33 motions, subject to the following conditions:
- Scope of subpoena: Each subpoena is limited to the subscriber's name and address during the period of alleged infringing activity. No other discovery is authorized. - Notice period: Each subpoena must give the ISP at least 60 days before production is required. - Subscriber notification: The ISP must notify the subscriber within 14 calendar days of receiving the subpoena. - Subscriber response window: The subscriber then has 45 calendar days to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or both. - Anonymity protection: Strike 3 may not publicly disclose any defendant's identity until the defendant has had the opportunity to move the court to proceed anonymously. If the defendant does not file such a motion within 45 days of disclosure to Strike 3's counsel, the protective order expires. Any such motion may be temporarily filed under seal. - Order must accompany subpoena: Strike 3 must serve a copy of the court's order with each subpoena, and ISPs must provide a copy to the subscriber along with the required notice. ISPs must certify they provided notice and state the date. - Status reports: Strike 3 must file a status report in each of the 33 cases by September 23, 2025, describing discovery progress but not identifying any defendant.
Scope of the Order
This omnibus order covers 33 cases filed between April and June 2025, with defendants identified only by IP addresses assigned by ISPs identified as Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, and Spectrum. The case name in the filing metadata (IP address 73.65.121.67) is one of the 33 cases addressed.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.