Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:22-cv-04729
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Stanton's record contains a request for early subpoena discovery, not a court ruling.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified Doe defendant, Spectrum as the internet service provider, and the court's scheduling process would be affected by the requested early discovery and conference delay.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, called John Doe, over alleged copyright infringement involving files shared through the BitTorrent network. The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only by an internet-protocol address and did not know the defendant's name or address.
The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion seeking early discovery from the internet provider Spectrum. It wanted a subpoena to identify the subscriber before the parties' required discovery-planning conference and asked to delay any initial scheduling conference until the defendant could be identified and served.
The provided document does not show that Judge Stanton granted or denied these requests. It is a letter asking for permission to file the discovery motion, so no court ruling or final outcome is stated.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-04729
- Louis Stanton
- June 17, 2022
Document and procedural posture
The provided document is a letter from Jacqueline M. James, representing Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. It asks the court for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for early discovery. The document does not itself state that the court entered an order granting or denying the request.
Background
Strike 3 Holdings alleged that an unidentified defendant used an internet connection assigned to a particular internet-protocol address to infringe the plaintiff's copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only by the internet-protocol address and did not know the defendant's name or address.
The plaintiff stated that Spectrum, the internet service provider associated with the address, keeps logs that can connect an internet-protocol address with a customer identity. It also stated that those logs may be retained for only a short period.
Request for early discovery
The plaintiff asked to file a motion seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum before the parties' required discovery-planning conference. It said the subpoena would seek information identifying the Doe defendant. The plaintiff also asked the court to adjourn any scheduled initial scheduling conference, or not schedule one, until the defendant was identified and served.
The letter argued that courts may permit early discovery for good cause and identified five considerations the plaintiff said would support such relief: a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, no alternative way to obtain the information, a central need for the information, and a minimal expectation of privacy by the defendant. The plaintiff said it would address those considerations in the motion it sought permission to file.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. The document does not say that Judge Louis L. Stanton granted permission to file the motion, authorized the subpoena, adjourned the scheduling conference, or denied any request. Accordingly, the available text shows only the plaintiff's request and not a court ruling on it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.