Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Loretta Preska
- 1:25-cv-06411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Preska granted permission to file a motion seeking early discovery to identify the unnamed defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may file a motion seeking early discovery from Starry to identify the unnamed defendant. The order does not itself authorize service of the subpoena or identify the defendant.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant, identified by an internet protocol address, alleging that the defendant used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrights.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena the internet service provider Starry before the parties’ required early case meeting, so it could learn the defendant’s identity. It also asked to delay any scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The court granted the request to file the motion and directed the Clerk to close docket number 6. The order does not itself grant permission to issue the subpoena. Judge Loretta A. Preska signed the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-06411
- Loretta Preska
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s internet protocol address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. Strike 3 stated that it owns copyrights to movies distributed through three subscription-based adult websites.
Plaintiff’s Request
Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on the internet service provider Starry before the parties held their required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested discovery was intended to identify the Doe defendant. Strike 3 also requested that any initial scheduling conference be adjourned, or not scheduled, until the defendant was identified and served.
The plaintiff argued that it would show good cause for early discovery, including a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, no alternative way to obtain the defendant’s identity, a central need for that information, and a minimal expectation of privacy in the requested information.
Ruling
The court granted the request to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena. The Clerk was directed to close docket number 6. The order does not state that the court granted the subpoena itself or ruled on the request to adjourn the scheduling conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.