Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-11228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed early discovery so Strike 3 could identify the anonymous defendant before serving the lawsuit.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek information from Verizon Fios to identify the Doe defendant. The unidentified defendant is affected because the discovery may reveal the person’s identity and allow service of the lawsuit.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, known only by an internet address, alleging that the person used BitTorrent to copy and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted works. Strike 3 said Verizon Fios could use its records to identify the subscriber.
Strike 3 asked for permission to seek a subpoena to Verizon Fios before the parties’ required early conference. It argued that early discovery was necessary because the subscriber’s identity was central to the case and the internet provider might not keep the relevant records for long.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the application to serve the third-party subpoena. He required Strike 3 to identify and serve the defendant by March 31, 2024, or explain why it could not do so.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-11228
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that an unidentified defendant infringed its copyrights by using the BitTorrent file-distribution network. The defendant was identified in the case only by an internet-protocol address. Strike 3 stated that Verizon Fios, the internet service provider, could use its internal records to identify the subscriber assigned that address.
Request
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), discovery generally cannot begin before the parties hold a required conference unless the court permits it. Strike 3 asked for permission to file and serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before that conference. The subpoena sought information identifying the Doe defendant. Strike 3 also asked the court to delay any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Strike 3 argued that early discovery was justified because it would present an initial showing of copyright infringement, seek specific information, had no alternative way to obtain the defendant’s identity, centrally needed that information, and claimed the defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy in the alleged transmission or distribution of copyrighted material.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the application to serve a third-party subpoena. The order required Strike 3 to name and serve the defendant by March 31, 2024, or provide an explanation why it could not do so. The excerpt does not separately state whether the request to delay the initial scheduling conference was granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.