Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield permitted a motion seeking early subpoena discovery, kept the conference scheduled, and closed the pre-motion request.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unidentified Doe defendant; the order also concerns the requested subpoena to Spectrum and the case schedule.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified Doe defendant for alleged copyright infringement involving the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Because Strike 3 did not know the defendant’s name or address, it asked to seek information from the internet provider Spectrum through an early subpoena.
The court directed Strike 3 to file its anticipated motion by April 17, 2024. It did not decide whether Strike 3 could serve the subpoena. The court also kept the May 15 initial conference scheduled, while allowing Strike 3 to request an adjournment by May 8 if the defendant had not been identified and served.
Judge Schofield directed the Clerk to close the pre-motion request at docket entry 7. The order addressed the timing of discovery and the scheduling conference, not whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02502
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 9, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed the case against a John Doe defendant whose identity was not known. Strike 3 stated that the defendant’s internet protocol address had been used to infringe its copyrighted works through the BitTorrent file-distribution network. Strike 3 said the internet service provider, Spectrum, maintained records that could connect the IP address to a customer.
Strike 3 requested permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for early discovery. That rule generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the parties’ required initial conference unless the court permits it. The requested discovery was a third-party subpoena to Spectrum seeking information that could identify the Doe defendant. Strike 3 also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Court’s action
The court directed Strike 3 to file its anticipated motion by April 17, 2024. The order did not grant the requested subpoena or decide whether Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery.
The court kept the initial pretrial conference scheduled for May 15, 2024. If the defendant had not been named and served by May 8, Strike 3 was directed to file a letter requesting an adjournment rather than filing conference materials. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at docket entry 7.
Result and significance
This was a procedural order about early discovery and case scheduling. It did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement allegations or determine the Doe defendant’s identity. Judge Schofield’s order permitted Strike 3 to submit its anticipated motion but left the subpoena request for later decision.
Disposition
The pre-motion request was closed at docket entry 7; Strike 3 was directed to file its anticipated motion by April 17, 2024. The initial pretrial conference remained scheduled, subject to a later request for adjournment if the defendant had not been identified and served.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.