Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-11219
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Ramos granted a request to file a motion seeking early discovery to identify the unknown copyright defendant and delay scheduling.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek early discovery aimed at identifying the unnamed defendant, and the scheduling process may be affected until the defendant is identified and served. The opinion does not identify the Doe defendant by name.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant identified only by an internet protocol address, alleging copyright infringement through the BitTorrent file-sharing network. The opinion says the defendant’s name and address were not known to Strike 3 Holdings.
Strike 3 Holdings asked to file a motion for permission to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. It also asked to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request. The order allowed Strike 3 Holdings to pursue the requested motion and the requested scheduling-related relief; it did not itself state that the subpoena or early discovery was authorized.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-11219
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant for alleged copyright infringement. According to the filing, the defendant was known only by an internet protocol (IP) address, and Strike 3 Holdings did not yet know the defendant’s name or address. The filing alleges that the IP address was used through the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted works.
Request
Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking early discovery from Spectrum, the internet service provider associated with the IP address. The proposed discovery was intended to identify the Doe defendant. Rule 26(d)(1) generally restricts discovery before the parties hold their required discovery-planning conference unless the court permits it. Strike 3 Holdings also requested that any initial scheduling conference be postponed until the defendant was identified and served.
The filing argued that good cause would support the requested discovery. It cited factors used in similar cases, including a preliminary showing of copyright infringement, a specific discovery request, the lack of another way to obtain the information, the importance of the information, and the defendant’s limited privacy expectation. These were arguments in Strike 3 Holdings’ request; the order itself does not provide a separate analysis of those factors.
Ruling
The order states: “The request is granted.” Thus, Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Strike 3 Holdings’ request. The text does not state that the court itself issued or authorized the third-party subpoena, and it does not give a separate disposition for each component of the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.