Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against an unidentified defendant referred to as Doe. According to Strike 3’s filing, the defendant’s name and address were unknown, but the defendant’s internet protocol address had allegedly been used to infringe Strike 3’s copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. Strike 3 stated that Optimum Online, the internet service provider associated with the address, could use its records to identify the subscriber.

Requests

Strike 3 filed a letter asking for permission to file a motion seeking early discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents discovery before the parties’ initial discovery conference unless the court allows it. Strike 3 also requested that any initial scheduling conference be delayed until Doe was identified and served.

The opinion refers to a motion at ECF No. 6 seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena and to a later-filed letter at ECF No. 8. Strike 3 argued that early discovery was justified because it had made, or would make, a preliminary showing of copyright infringement; had identified a specific subpoena request; lacked another way to obtain Doe’s identity; needed the information to pursue the case; and claimed Doe had only a limited expectation of privacy in the information.

Ruling

The court denied the request in the letter as moot because the motion seeking leave had already been filed. 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 at ECF Nos. 6 and 8.

This was a discovery ruling. The court did not determine whether Doe infringed Strike 3’s copyrights or otherwise decide the underlying claims.