Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant for alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only through an Internet Protocol address and alleged that the address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network.

The plaintiff asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to file a motion seeking a third-party subpoena to Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference normally required by Rule 26(f). The requested information was intended to identify the defendant. The plaintiff said an internet service provider maintains records connecting Internet Protocol addresses to customers and that those records may be kept only for a short time.

Requested Relief and Ruling

The plaintiff also asked the court to delay any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served. The letter argued that early discovery should be allowed because the plaintiff would show a preliminary copyright-infringement claim, make a specific request, lack another way to obtain the identifying information, need that information centrally to the case, and face a defendant with only a limited privacy expectation. These points were presented as arguments for a later motion; the opinion text does not itself make factual findings on those issues.

The order states “GRANTED” and indicates that permission to file the proposed motion was granted. The reproduced order is incomplete or distorted around the separate request to delay the scheduling conference, so it is unclear whether that request received a separate ruling. Judge Victor Marrero issued the order. The order did not decide whether the defendant actually infringed copyright or whether the requested subpoena would ultimately issue.