Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-08120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Karas marked “Ordered” a request to seek early discovery identifying an anonymous copyright defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unnamed John Doe defendant; the requested discovery would also involve Optimum Online as the third-party internet service provider.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant identified only by an internet protocol address, alleging that the defendant used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrights. Strike 3 said it did not know the defendant’s name or address and that Optimum Online could identify the subscriber associated with the address.
Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion seeking a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. It also asked the court to postpone, or not schedule, the initial case-management conference until the defendant was identified and served. The letter argued that early discovery was justified under the federal discovery rules and cited factors used in similar copyright cases.
The letter is marked “Ordered” and dated October 15, 2025, by Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe. The text does not specify whether the court granted the requested subpoena, merely allowed Strike 3 to file the proposed motion, or separately ruled on the scheduling request.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-08120
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright-infringement case against a defendant identified as John Doe. According to Strike 3’s letter, the defendant’s name and address were unknown, and the defendant was identified through an internet protocol (IP) address. Strike 3 alleged that the IP address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network.
Strike 3 stated that it owns three subscription-based adult websites and the copyrights to the movies distributed through those websites. It said that the internet service provider associated with the IP address, Optimum Online, maintained records that could identify the subscriber assigned that address. Strike 3 also stated that internet service providers retain those records for only a short time.
Requested relief
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery generally cannot begin before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless the court permits it. Strike 3 asked for permission to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Optimum Online before that conference. The proposed subpoena would seek information identifying John Doe.
Strike 3 argued that there was good cause for early discovery. It said it would present an initial showing of copyright infringement, make a specific discovery request, show that no alternative way existed to obtain the identity information, establish the information’s central importance to the case, and show that the defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy in the requested information. The letter cited decisions discussing early subpoenas in internet copyright cases.
Strike 3 also requested that any initial Rule 16 scheduling conference be postponed until the defendant was identified and served, or that the court not schedule such a conference until then.
Court action
The document contains an “Ordered” endorsement dated October 15, 2025, associated with Judge Kenneth M. Karas. The supplied text does not state the exact terms of that order. In particular, it does not clearly say whether the court granted permission to serve the subpoena, granted permission only to file the requested motion, granted or denied the request concerning the scheduling conference, or made another procedural ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.