Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-07405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Roman addressed a request for early identity discovery, but the filing does not clearly state what relief was granted or denied.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe defendant, and potentially Optimum Online, the internet service provider from which Strike 3 sought identifying information. The provided filing does not clearly establish that the subpoena or early discovery was authorized.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified John Doe, alleging that the person using a particular internet address infringed its copyrights through the BitTorrent network. Strike 3 said it did not yet know the defendant’s name or address.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Optimum Online, the internet provider, before the usual early case-management conference. It also asked to postpone that conference until the defendant could be identified and served. The request described legal standards that courts use when deciding whether there is good reason to allow this kind of early discovery.
Judge Roman signed the filing with “SO ORDERED,” and the filing asks the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 6. The text provided does not expressly say whether the requested early discovery or postponement was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-07405
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 22, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement case against an unidentified defendant identified in the filing as “John Doe.” Strike 3’s counsel stated that the defendant’s name and address were unknown because the defendant was identified only by an Internet Protocol address. The filing alleged that the address had been used to infringe Strike 3’s copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network.
Requested early discovery
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 before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena would be directed to Optimum Online, the internet service provider, to obtain information that could identify the person assigned the relevant Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 also requested that any initial scheduling conference under Rule 16 be postponed until the defendant was identified and served, or that the conference not be scheduled until then.
The filing stated that courts generally consider whether a plaintiff has made an initial showing of copyright infringement, whether the requested discovery is specific, whether other ways of obtaining the information exist, whether the information is central to the case, and whether the defendant has a minimal expectation of privacy. Strike 3’s counsel said the company would address those factors in a later motion.
Court action and disposition
The filing ends with a request that the court permit Strike 3 to file the early-discovery motion and postpone the scheduling conference. It also asks the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 6. Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the document “SO ORDERED.” The provided text does not expressly state whether Judge Roman granted or denied the requested permission, authorized the subpoena, or postponed the conference. It therefore does not establish a ruling on the alleged copyright infringement or clearly identify the precise disposition of the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.