Strike 3 holdings, LLc v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-00648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas granted Plaintiff’s request to file a motion for early discovery to identify the defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC received permission for the requested next step concerning early discovery. The unidentified John Doe defendant and Optimum Online could be affected by any later subpoena or related order, but this document does not state that a subpoena was issued or that Optimum Online had to disclose information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified Internet subscriber, called John Doe, alleging that the subscriber used BitTorrent to infringe its copyrighted works. The company said it could identify the subscriber only through an Internet Protocol address held by the Internet service provider, Optimum Online.
Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to file a motion seeking an early subpoena to Optimum Online before the required discovery-planning conference. It also asked to postpone, or not schedule, the initial case-management conference until the defendant was identified and served.
The order says “Granted.” Judge Kenneth M. Karas therefore granted the request presented in the letter, but the text does not state that the subpoena itself was issued or that the court decided whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 holdings, LLc v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-00648
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant as John Doe. The company alleged that the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted works. According to the request, the defendant was known only by an Internet Protocol address, and the Internet service provider, Optimum Online, maintained records that could connect that address to a customer.
Request
Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to file a motion seeking leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Optimum Online before the parties held the required discovery-planning conference. The requested discovery was intended to learn the defendant’s identity. Strike 3 Holdings also asked the court to postpone any initial case-management conference until the defendant was named and served.
The letter argued that early discovery was justified because Strike 3 Holdings expected to show an initial copyright-infringement claim, make a specific request, demonstrate that no alternative way existed to obtain the identifying information, show that the information was central to the case, and establish that the defendant had only a limited privacy interest in the information.
Ruling
The document states: “Granted.” Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the request presented in the letter. The text does not separately explain whether the court granted each requested component, and it does not state that the subpoena was issued, that Optimum Online was ordered to disclose information, or that the court reached the merits of the copyright-infringement allegations. This is a discovery-related procedural order, not a decision on liability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.