Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
1:25-cv-00210
W.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleges that an unnamed defendant infringed its copyrights by downloading and distributing its motion pictures using BitTorrent, identified by IP address 72.88.82.242.
- Strike 3 filed an ex parte motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon (defendant's ISP) before a Rule 26(f) conference, seeking the subscriber’s name and address to serve process.
- Plaintiff asserts ownership of the copyrighted works and describes use of proprietary infringement detection tools to track the specific IP address’s alleged activity.
- Plaintiff claims it cannot otherwise identify or serve defendant due to BitTorrent’s anonymity and statutory ISP privacy obligations.
- The court analyzes whether to allow early discovery, balancing plaintiff’s need for the defendant’s identity against privacy and potential for embarrassment or coercion.
- The court ultimately enters a protective order requiring all disclosed personal information to remain confidential unless otherwise ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early subpoena before Rule 26(f) conference | Good cause exists to identify defendant; necessary to proceed with the lawsuit | Not present/ex parte | Granted; early discovery allowed to identify the defendant |
| Prima facie claim of copyright infringement | Owns copyrights; infringement detected via technology | Not present/ex parte | Sufficient showing made |
| No alternative means for identifying defendant | ISP subpoena is the only way to identify defendant | Not present/ex parte | No alternative means exist; subpoena necessary |
| Defendant’s privacy vs. plaintiff’s interests | Plaintiff's interest outweighs privacy concerns; use of protective order offered | Not present/ex parte | Plaintiff’s interest prevails, subject to confidentiality order |
Key Cases Cited
- Sony Music Entm’t Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (establishes elements for prima facie copyright infringement and supports discovery to identify defendants)
- Arista Records LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (privacy expectation insufficient to block disclosure of ISP subscriber identities in copyright actions)
- Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-179, 279 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (court may issue protective orders and authorize ISP subpoenas in similar copyright infringement cases)
- Rotten Records, Inc. v. Doe, 107 F. Supp. 3d 257 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (sets out good cause factors for early discovery in copyright cases)