Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-09640
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman denied a moot request but granted early discovery to subpoena Doe’s internet provider for Doe’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC received permission to serve a third-party subpoena seeking information that could identify the Doe defendant. The unidentified Doe defendant’s internet service provider, Optimum Online, is the provider from which Strike 3 sought that information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified Doe defendant for alleged copyright infringement involving the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Strike 3 said it knew the defendant only through an Internet Protocol address and sought to learn the defendant’s name and address from internet provider Optimum Online.
Strike 3 first asked for permission to file a motion for early discovery and asked to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant could be identified and served. The court also considered Strike 3’s motion to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the letter request as moot but granted Strike 3’s motion to serve a third-party subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). The clerk was directed to terminate both motions.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-09640
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 16, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified Doe defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe Strike 3’s copyrights. The defendant was identified in the case only by an Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 said the Internet service provider associated with that address, Optimum Online, could use its records to identify the subscriber.
Requests
Strike 3’s letter asked for permission to file a motion seeking early discovery and asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 also filed a motion seeking permission to serve a third-party subpoena on the internet service provider to obtain the Doe defendant’s identity.
Strike 3 argued that early discovery was justified because it could make an initial showing of copyright infringement, had identified the information sought, lacked another way to obtain the information, needed the information to proceed, and alleged that the subscriber had only a limited expectation of privacy in the transmission or distribution of copyrighted material.
Ruling
The court denied Strike 3’s request in the letter as moot because Strike 3 had already filed the motion. The court nevertheless granted Strike 3’s motion to serve a third-party subpoena under Rule 26(d)(1). The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at Electronic Court Filing Nos. 7 and 8. The opinion text does not state that the court decided whether copyright infringement actually occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.