Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 1:25-cv-00214

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an anonymous defendant, identified only by an IP address, alleging copyright infringement of its motion pictures via the BitTorrent network.
Plaintiff requested the court's permission to issue a pre-Rule 26(f) conference subpoena to Verizon (Defendant's ISP) to discover the name and address of the alleged infringer.
Such pre-conference discovery requires a showing of "good cause;" courts analyze certain factors including the sufficiency of the copyright claim and privacy interests at stake.
Plaintiff demonstrated ownership of the copyrighted works and alleged unauthorized redistribution via BitTorrent using its proprietary detection tools.
The court considered the balance between Plaintiff’s need to identify the defendant and the privacy interests of the subscriber, recognizing the risk of misidentification.
The court simultaneously imposed a protective order to maintain Defendant’s anonymity until further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is early discovery against ISP warranted?	Early subpoena is needed to identify the infringer.	Not present	Granted as good cause was shown.
Has Plaintiff stated prima facie copyright claim?	Provided sufficient factual allegations and registrations.	Not present	Sufficient at this stage.
Are there alternative means to identify defendant?	No; only ISP can link IP to subscriber.	Not present	No alternatives exist.
Should the Court protect Defendant's identity?	Willing to accept procedural safeguards (anonymity).	Not present	Protective order issued, identity withheld.

Arista Records LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (held defendant’s privacy interest in sharing copyrighted works online is insufficient to prevent disclosure)
Sony Music Entm’t Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (sets out the prima facie standard for copyright infringement claims)