Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-01727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman granted permission to serve a subpoena seeking the unidentified defendant’s identity.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may serve a third-party subpoena seeking information to identify the John Doe defendant. The unidentified defendant and Optimum Online may be affected by that discovery, while the scheduling conference will not be scheduled until sometime after the defendant answers.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified John Doe defendant, claiming that the defendant used the BitTorrent network to infringe its copyrights. Strike 3 said it knew only the internet protocol address and sought information from the internet service provider, Optimum Online, to learn the defendant’s name and address.
Strike 3 asked to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference. It also asked the court to delay the initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the request to serve the third-party subpoena. The court said that no initial scheduling conference would be scheduled until sometime after the defendant answered, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 8.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-01727
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. According to Strike 3, the defendant used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to directly infringe copyrights in movies distributed through Strike 3’s subscription-based adult websites. Strike 3 said it could identify the defendant through records maintained by the defendant’s internet service provider, Optimum Online, which allegedly kept records connecting internet protocol addresses to customer identities.
Plaintiff’s Request
Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Optimum Online before the parties held the conference generally required before discovery begins. The requested information was intended to identify the Doe defendant. Strike 3 also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant had been identified and served.
Strike 3 argued that good cause supported early discovery. It said it would present an initial showing of copyright infringement, make a specific request, show that no alternative means existed to obtain the information, establish the information’s central importance, and show that the defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy. These were arguments made by Strike 3; the provided text does not state that the court separately decided the merits of the copyright claim.
Ruling
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to serve a third-party subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The court’s text identifies Rule 26(a)(1), while Strike 3’s request referred to Rule 26(d)(1). The court further ordered that an initial Rule 16 scheduling conference would not be scheduled until sometime after the defendant answered. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 8.
This order concerns early discovery and case scheduling. It does not state that the defendant’s identity was disclosed, that the subpoena was served, or that the copyright-infringement claim was resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.