Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe
ORDER granting #11 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 9/19/2022. (ACL)
Case 8:22-cv-01674-CEH-CPT Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 95
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
Case No. 8:22-cv-1674-CEH-CPT
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena
Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. (Doc. 11). For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff’s
motion is granted.
Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Strike 3) initiated this action in July 2022,
alleging copyright infringement against an unnamed individual (hereinafter, the Doe
According to Strike 3, the Doe Defendant unlawfully
reproduced and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted works anonymously through the use
of the internet and a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol known as BitTorrent. Id. As a
result of its investigation, Strike 3 has identified the Doe Defendant’s Internet Protocol
Case 8:22-cv-01674-CEH-CPT Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 96
(IP) address (i.e., 188.8.131.52) as the one from which the allegedly infringing
conduct occurred. Id.
By way of the instant motion, Strike 3 now asks that the Court afford it leave to
engage in limited, expedited discovery with the Doe Defendant’s Internet Service
Provider (ISP), Spectrum, to learn the Doe Defendant’s true identity. (Doc. 11). Strike
3 represents that it has conferred with the Doe Defendant’s attorney, and that the Doe
Defendant does not oppose the sought-after relief. Id.
Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally precludes a party
from requesting discovery from any source before the parties participate in their
required Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). This rule admits of an
exception, however, where a party obtains court approval in advance. Id. (stating that
a party may seek discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference “when authorized by . . .
A party seeking leave to conduct such expedited discovery must establish that
there is good cause for doing so. Richardson v. Virtuoso Sourcing Grp., LLC, 2015 WL
12862517, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2015); United States v. Gachette, 2014 WL 5518669,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2014). When a case involves infringement by means of the
internet, “courts often evaluate good cause by considering factors such as the
concreteness of the plaintiff’s prima facie case of infringement; the specificity of the
discovery request; the absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed
information; and the need for the subpoenaed information to advance the claim.”
Case 8:22-cv-01674-CEH-CPT Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 97
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:19-cv-335-J-34JBT (Doc. 13 at 2) (M.D. Fla. Apr.
3, 2019) (quoting Manny Film LLC v. Doe, 2015 WL 12850566, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May
18, 2015)). Some courts also consider a defendant’s expectation of privacy. See, e.g.,
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 329 F.R.D. 518, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Arista
Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010)).
In the end, whether the moving party has demonstrated good cause is left to a
court’s broad discretion. Richardson, 2015 WL 12862517, at *1 (citing Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)); Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Holden Prop. Servs., LLC, 299
F.R.D. 692, 694 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269
(11th Cir. 2001)).
The Court finds that Strike 3 has met its burden of establishing good cause here.
As attested to by its Chief Technology Officer, Strike 3 developed and employed an
infringement detection system, known as VXN Scan, to ascertain IP addresses used to
violate the company’s copyright protections via BitTorrent.
reviewing the results of this scan, Strike 3’s forensic investigator was able to determine
that the Doe Defendant’s IP address had uploaded a portion of one or more of Strike
3’s copyrighted works. (Doc. 11-2). Strike 3 also analyzed the data to confirm that
the alleged infringing files detected in its investigation corresponded with those
protected works. (Doc. 11-3).
In addition to this evidence, Strike 3 has sufficiently tailored its subpoena by
restricting it to the Doe Defendant’s name and address. (Doc. 11-4). Moreover,
although Strike 3’s forensic investigation has led to the discovery of the Doe
Case 8:22-cv-01674-CEH-CPT Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 98
Defendant’s IP address and the Doe Defendant is represented in this action, the
identity of the user of this IP address remains unknown. (Doc. 11-2). Strike 3 submits
that the sole mechanism for discerning the true name and address of the Doe
Defendant is through Spectrum. Id. Strike 3 further submits that Spectrum will only
maintain the requested information for a limited period of time and that, if this
information is erased, Strike 3 will not be able to pursue its infringement action, much
less engage in a meaningful Rule 26(f) conference. (Doc. 11 at 6–7, 13–14).
Finally, with respect to the matter of privacy, a number of courts have observed
that “ISP subscribers have a minimal expectation of privacy in the transmission or
distribution of copyrighted material.” Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2019 WL 1620692,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2019) (quoting Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1–30, 284 F.R.D.
185, 191 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2012) and citing Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–11,
2013 WL 3732839, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2013)). While the Court recognizes that
the ISP subscriber at a given IP address may not be the same individual who engaged
in the infringing activity, SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1–3036, 2011 WL 6002620, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011), “[a]ny concern about identifying the wrong individual and
subsequent undue embarrassment can be alleviated with the Court’s procedural
safeguards described below,” Strike 3 Holdings, 2019 WL 1620692, at *2.
In light of all of the above, it is hereby ORDERED:
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to Rule
26(f) Conference (Doc. 11) is granted.
Case 8:22-cv-01674-CEH-CPT Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 99
Strike 3 may serve Spectrum with a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 45 to determine the name and address of the person to whom
Spectrum has assigned the IP address 184.108.40.206. Strike 3 may also serve a Rule
45 subpoena seeking the same information on any other ISP that may be later
identified in response to the initial subpoena to Spectrum.
Strike 3 shall include a copy of the complaint (Doc. 1), the attachments
thereto, and this Order with any subpoena and, if the ISP qualifies as a “cable
operator” as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), 1 this Order shall then be considered an
appropriate court order under 47 U.S.C. § 551. 2
Any ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this Order shall provide
written notice to the subscriber within twenty-one (21) days of service of the subpoena,
informing the subscriber that identifying information has been sought pursuant to a
Rule 45 subpoena and that the subscriber has the right to challenge that subpoena in
court (as set forth herein). The ISP shall additionally provide a copy of this Order with
the written notification.
Section 522(5) of Title 47, United States Code, defines the term “cable operator” as “any person or
group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or
more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is
responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system.”
Section 551(c)(2)(B) of Title 47, United States Code, states, in pertinent part, that “[a] cable operator
may disclose [personally identifying information] if the disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court
order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the
order is directed.”
Case 8:22-cv-01674-CEH-CPT Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 100
The subscriber shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of the ISP’s
written notification to move to quash or otherwise challenge Strike 3’s subpoena. The
subscriber must serve a copy of his or her motion upon both Strike 3’s counsel and the
The ISP shall produce the subpoenaed information to Strike 3 no earlier
than twenty-one (21) days after written notification has been provided to the
subscriber. If, however, the subscriber moves to quash or otherwise challenges the
subpoena, the ISP shall not disclose the subpoenaed information to Strike 3 until the
Court has resolved the subscriber’s challenge.
Any ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this Order shall preserve
all subpoenaed information until either the ISP has delivered such information to
Strike 3 or the Court renders a final determination that excuses the ISP’s compliance
with the subpoena.
Any ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this Order may not charge
Strike 3 in advance for providing the information requested in the subpoena. An ISP
may, however, elect to charge Strike 3 a reasonable amount for the costs of production.
Any information disclosed to Strike 3 in response to a subpoena may only
be used by it to protect and enforce its rights as set forth in its complaint (Doc. 1).
SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 19th day of September 2022.
Case 8:22-cv-01674-CEH-CPT Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 101
Counsel of record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?