Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.41.184.36

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 37 nearly identical copyright-infringement cases in the District of Minnesota between July 2025 and January 2026. Each defendant was identified as a John Doe subscriber associated with a particular internet-protocol address. Strike 3 alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution protocol to download and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted movies without authorization.

Strike 3 alleged that its proprietary infringement-detection system, called VXN, detected the alleged distribution from each listed internet-protocol address. Strike 3 said it could not identify the defendants by name, but that each defendant’s internet-service provider could match the address to the subscriber’s name and address.

Motions and Legal Standard

Strike 3 filed an ex parte motion in each case. An ex parte motion is made without the opposing party participating before the court rules. Strike 3 sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 before the parties held the conference generally required by Rule 26(f). The requested discovery was intended to identify the defendants, investigate their alleged roles, and allow service of the lawsuits.

The court applied the good-cause standard used in similar cases in the District of Minnesota. Under that standard, the need for early discovery must outweigh the prejudice to the responding party. The court applied five factors: whether Strike 3 showed a concrete initial claim, whether the request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed to advance the case, and the subscriber’s privacy expectation.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that expedited discovery was warranted in all 37 cases because Strike 3 had stated an actionable copyright claim, the request was limited to each subscriber’s name and address, and no alternative method existed to obtain the information. The court also found that the cases could not proceed without identifying the defendants and that Strike 3’s interest in pursuing its copyright claims outweighed the subscribers’ privacy expectations, provided that privacy protections were imposed.

The court recognized that the subscriber associated with an internet-protocol address might not be the person who committed the alleged infringement. It therefore entered a limited protective order. The court also noted that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s subpoena procedure did not apply when an internet-service provider merely acts as a conduit for data transferred between internet users, and that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had endorsed the type of John Doe lawsuit and third-party discovery used here in that situation.

Disposition

The court granted all 37 motions for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. Strike 3 may subpoena each defendant’s internet-service provider for only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the listed internet-protocol address during the periods of alleged infringement.

The subpoena must provide at least 60 days’ notice before production is required and may seek only one category of documents identifying the subscriber. The provider must notify the subscriber within 14 calendar days after receiving the subpoena. The subscriber then has 45 calendar days from the notice date to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or do both. No other discovery was authorized.

Strike 3 may not publicly disclose information produced under the subpoenas until the defendant has had an opportunity to request permission to proceed anonymously and the court rules on that request. The court temporarily ordered under seal any request containing identifying information while it considers the request. Strike 3 must file a status report in each case by April 10, 2026, without including information about any defendant’s identity.

The order granted permission for limited early discovery; it did not determine whether any defendant committed copyright infringement or otherwise resolve the underlying claims.