Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Victor Marrero
- 1:23-cv-11213
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Marrero granted leave to file a motion seeking early subpoena discovery to identify the defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may file the proposed motion seeking early discovery. The Doe defendant remains unidentified, and the text does not state that Verizon Fios was ordered to provide information or that a subpoena was authorized.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified Internet subscriber, known as John Doe, claiming copyright infringement involving works allegedly distributed through the BitTorrent network. Strike 3 said it knew the defendant only by an Internet Protocol address.
Strike 3 asked to file a motion seeking permission to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required planning conference, so the Internet provider could identify the subscriber. It also asked to delay any scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge Victor Marrero granted leave to file the proposed motion. The text does not state that the court granted the subpoena, decided the copyright claim, or ruled on the request to delay a scheduling conference.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-11213
- Victor Marrero
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement action against an unidentified Internet subscriber, referred to as John Doe. The plaintiff stated that it owned three subscription-based adult websites and the copyrights to the movies distributed through those websites. It alleged that the Doe defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe its copyrighted works.
The plaintiff said it knew the defendant only by an Internet Protocol address assigned by an Internet service provider. It identified Verizon Fios as the provider that could use that address, along with its assignment records, to identify the subscriber. The opinion text does not identify the defendant by name or state that the defendant had been served.
Request
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), the plaintiff requested permission to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held their Rule 26(f) planning conference. The proposed subpoena would seek limited discovery from Verizon Fios to learn the Doe defendant’s identity. The plaintiff also requested an adjournment of any initial scheduling conference, or that no such conference be scheduled, until the defendant was identified and served.
The plaintiff stated that its forthcoming motion would address factors courts use when considering early discovery in Internet copyright 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 expectation of privacy.
Ruling
Judge Victor Marrero ordered: “Leave to file the proposed motion is hereby GRANTED.” The ruling therefore permitted Strike 3 Holdings to file the proposed motion. Based on the text provided, the court did not itself grant leave to serve the subpoena, decide the copyright-infringement allegations, or state a disposition of the request to adjourn or avoid the scheduling conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.