Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 6:25-cv-06097

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a John Doe defendant, identified only by an IP address, alleging unauthorized downloading and distribution of its motion pictures via BitTorrent.
Plaintiff used proprietary detection technologies ("VXN Scan" and "Cross Reference Tool") to document alleged infringement tied to the IP address.
Plaintiff sought an ex parte order allowing early discovery—specifically, to subpoena the defendant’s ISP (Spectrum) for the name and address associated with the IP address, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference.
Plaintiff asserted that without the subpoena, it could not identify or serve the defendant, and the case could not proceed.
The court considered the privacy interest of the Doe defendant as well as concerns about potential misidentification and unjust settlement pressure.
The court issued a protective order to keep the defendant’s identity confidential until otherwise ordered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Early subpoena before Rule 26(f) conference	Good cause exists: necessary to identify and serve defendant	Not present (Doe not yet identified)	Motion granted; immediate discovery allowed
Prima facie copyright claim	Sufficient allegations of ownership and infringement by defendant	Not present	Prima facie case established
Specificity and alternative means	Request is narrowly tailored; no alternative to identify defendant	Not present	Request is specific and necessary
Privacy and protective order	Plaintiff will agree to confidentiality, limits on publicity	Not present	Protective order issued to protect identity

Sony Music Entm’t Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (outlines elements for prima facie copyright infringement claim)
Arista Records LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses privacy expectations of internet file-sharers in copyright cases)