Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
3:25-cv-00310
W.D.N.C.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleges copyright infringement against an unknown defendant identified only by an IP address.
- Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a subpoena on the ISP (AT&T Internet) to obtain the identity of the defendant before the Rule 26(f) conference.
- Under Federal Rules, discovery is generally not allowed before a Rule 26(f) conference, with exceptions for good cause.
- Plaintiff claims Doe used BitTorrent to copy and distribute 41 copyrighted works.
- Court must determine whether to allow early discovery so Plaintiff can identify and serve the Doe defendant.
- Motion is considered ex parte and is subject to privacy considerations for the unnamed defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early subpoena before Rule 26(f) | Needs subpoena to identify Doe and prosecute | No argument presented (unknown defendant) | Court grants leave for limited pre-conference subpoena |
| Prima facie case of infringement | Sufficient allegations of valid copyright & harm | No argument presented | Court finds plaintiff meets the prima facie standard |
| Specificity and necessity of discovery | Only way to get identifying information is from ISP | No alternative, must use ISP subpoena | Court finds request is specific and necessary |
| Expectation of privacy | Doe’s minimal privacy expectation isn't enough | (Implied) Doe’s privacy should be protected | Court finds minimal privacy does not outweigh need |
Key Cases Cited
- Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (support for granting early discovery for copyright plaintiffs to identify unknown defendants)
- Sony Music Ent. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (five-factor test for pre-discovery subpoenas in copyright cases)
- Avtec Systems, Inc. v. Peiffer, 21 F.3d 568 (4th Cir. 1994) (elements of a copyright infringement claim)