Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.220.31.22
- Dulce Foster
- 0:26-cv-01523
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 27
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Foster granted Strike 3's forty motions to subpoena internet service providers early to identify anonymous defendants accused of copyright infringement, with privacy protections.
Internet subscribers in Minnesota whose IP addresses were identified by Strike 3 Holdings as allegedly distributing copyrighted adult films via BitTorrent. These subscribers — who have not yet been named as defendants — may receive notice from their ISPs (Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, Spectrum, or Frontier Communications) that their identity is being sought in federal court. The person assigned to a particular IP address may or may not be the person who actually engaged in the alleged downloading.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.220.31.22 (and 39 related cases) involves a copyright holder that sued forty anonymous defendants — identified only by their internet protocol (IP) addresses — alleging each defendant used a file-sharing technology called BitTorrent to illegally download and distribute Strike 3's copyrighted movies. Because Strike 3 cannot identify the defendants by name, it asked the court for permission to send formal information requests (subpoenas) to each defendant's internet service provider (ISP) before the normal start of the information-exchange phase of litigation.
In each case, Strike 3 claims its proprietary detection systems caught the defendant's IP address distributing one or more of its copyrighted works. The only entity that can link an IP address to a real person's name and address is the ISP. Under the normal rules of federal civil litigation, a party cannot start gathering information from third parties until after an initial planning meeting with the opposing side — but since the defendants are anonymous, that meeting cannot happen. Strike 3 therefore sought the court's permission to skip that requirement and go straight to the ISPs.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted all forty motions, applying a five-factor legal test and concluding that Strike 3 showed good cause for early discovery in each case. However, the order includes significant privacy protections: the subpoenas are limited to each defendant's name and address only; the ISP must notify the subscriber before producing any information; the subscriber has 45 days to seek a court order blocking disclosure; and Strike 3 cannot publicly reveal any identifying information until the defendant has had a chance to ask the court to allow them to remain anonymous. Strike 3 must also file a progress report in each case by October 13, 2026.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.220.31.22 · No. 0:26-cv-01523
- Dulce J. Foster
- Aug. 14, 2026
Background
From February 2026 to July 2026, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed forty copyright infringement cases in the District of Minnesota, each against a "John Doe" defendant identified only by an IP address. Strike 3 alleges in each case that the defendant used the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file distribution protocol to download and distribute Strike 3's copyrighted movies without authorization. Strike 3 distributes its copyrighted movies through adult websites and DVDs.
Strike 3 states it operates proprietary infringement detection systems called "VXN Scan" and "Cross Reference Tool," which detected that each defendant's IP address was distributing one or more of Strike 3's copyrighted works. Strike 3 cannot identify the defendants beyond their IP addresses, but alleges that each defendant's internet service provider (ISP) can match the IP address to a subscriber's name and address.
The ISPs identified in the cases include Comcast Cable (in the majority of the cases), US Internet Corp (in six cases), Spectrum (in one case), and Frontier Communications (in three cases).
The Motions
In each of the forty cases, Strike 3 filed a substantively identical ex parte motion — meaning a request made to the court without the opposing party present — for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena (a formal legal demand for information) on each defendant's ISP before a Rule 26(f) conference. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), parties generally cannot seek discovery (information-gathering) from any source before the parties have held a planning conference, except by court order. Since the defendants are anonymous, no such conference can occur.
Strike 3 argued that the ISP is the only party with the information needed to identify each defendant, and that the cases cannot proceed without that identification.
Legal Standard
The court noted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not established a specific standard for when expedited (early) discovery is appropriate, but that courts in the District of Minnesota typically apply a "good cause" standard. The court applied the five-factor test from Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010), which asks:
- The concreteness of the plaintiff's showing of a prima facie (at-first-look) claim of actionable harm;
- The specificity of the discovery request;
- The absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information;
- The need for the subpoenaed information to advance the claim; and
- The objecting party's expectation of privacy.
The court noted this is its tenth omnibus order addressing substantially similar motions by Strike 3, and that prior decisions in this district have found good cause under the Arista Records factors in similar Strike 3 cases.
The court also noted that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a procedure for copyright holders to subpoena ISPs for infringer identification, but that the Eighth Circuit has held this process does not apply when an ISP acts only as a conduit for data between internet users — as in these cases — and that the "John Doe" lawsuit approach Strike 3 used is the endorsed alternative.
Analysis and Ruling
Applying the Arista Records factors, the court concluded expedited discovery was warranted in all forty cases:
- Prima facie claim: 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.
- Specificity: The discovery request is specific, seeking only each defendant's name and address.
- No alternative means: There is no other way to identify the defendants.
- Necessity: The cases cannot proceed without identifying the defendants, distinguishing these cases from those involving named entities with unknown employees.
- Privacy: With appropriate privacy guardrails (detailed below), Strike 3's right to use the judicial process outweighs each defendant's expectation of privacy.
The court expressly acknowledged the risk that an IP address subscriber may not be the actual infringer, and that these cases involve sensitive, potentially embarrassing subject matter. In light of these privacy concerns, the court imposed a limited protective order alongside each grant.
Order Terms and Privacy Protections
All forty motions were granted, subject to the following conditions set out in paragraphs 41–46 of the order:
- Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on each defendant's ISP seeking only the name and address of the subscriber assigned to the relevant IP address during the period of alleged infringing activity. - The subpoena must provide at least 60 days' notice before any production is required. - The ISP must notify the subscriber of the subpoena within 14 calendar days of service. - The subscriber then has 45 calendar days from that notice to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or both. - Strike 3 must serve a copy of the order with every subpoena, and the ISP must forward a copy of the order to the subscriber. - Strike 3 must not publicly disclose the subscriber's identity until the defendant has had an opportunity to ask the court to proceed anonymously and the court rules on any such request. If no motion for anonymous status is filed within 45 days of disclosure to counsel, the protective order expires. - Any motion to proceed anonymously that includes identifying information shall be temporarily filed under seal. - Strike 3 must file a status report in each case by October 13, 2026, describing discovery progress but not identifying the defendant. - No discovery beyond the above is authorized at this time.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.