Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-02370
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman granted discovery to identify the defendant and postponed the scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may serve a third-party subpoena seeking information to identify the Doe defendant. The unidentified defendant’s internet service provider, Verizon Fios, is the subpoena recipient described in the request, and the initial scheduling conference will be delayed until after the defendant answers.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified internet subscriber, known only by an Internet Protocol address, over alleged copyright infringement involving the BitTorrent network. The plaintiff said it needed the subscriber’s identity to proceed.
Strike 3 asked to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference. The subpoena sought information that could identify the subscriber, and the plaintiff also asked the court to delay the initial scheduling conference until the defendant was identified and served.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the plaintiff’s motion to serve the third-party subpoena under Rule 26(d)(1). The court directed that an initial scheduling conference would not be scheduled until after the defendant answered and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 6.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-02370
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought a copyright-infringement case against a John Doe defendant whose name and address were not known. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used an Internet Protocol address and the BitTorrent file-distribution network to infringe its copyrighted works. Strike 3 stated that Verizon Fios, the internet service provider associated with the address, maintained records that could identify the subscriber assigned to that address.
The plaintiff requested permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the discovery-planning conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). It also asked the court to postpone any initial scheduling conference until the defendant had been identified and served. The plaintiff argued that early discovery was justified because it would present an initial showing of copyright infringement, had made a specific request, lacked another way to obtain the identity information, needed that information to proceed, and contended that the defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy in the alleged conduct.
Ruling
The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to serve a third-party subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). The court stated that an initial Rule 16 scheduling conference would not be scheduled until sometime after the defendant had answered. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 6. The order did not decide whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred or whether Strike 3 would ultimately prevail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.