Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED re 4 MOTION for Discovery Third Party Early Discovery. Signed by US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter on 3/7/2025. (Sbro, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned
IP address 173.66.220.217,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-cv-00283 (LMB/WBP)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “Strike 3”) ex parte
Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. (“Motion”;
ECF No. 4.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff owns adult motion pictures that it distributes on
adult websites and DVDs. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 2–3.) Using an infringement detection system it
developed called “VXN Scan,” Plaintiff identified an internet protocol (“IP”) address used by
Defendant John Doe (“Defendant”) to anonymously and illegally download and distribute 42 of
Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies using a BitTorrent protocol. (Id. ¶¶ 17–50.) Because Plaintiff has
only been able to identify an IP address associated with the allegedly illegal activity, Plaintiff
filed this Motion seeking leave of Court to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Verizon Online LLC
(“Verizon Fios”), Defendant’s internet service provider (“ISP”), solely to discover Defendant’s
identity so it can serve the Complaint. (ECF No. 7 at 1–2.)
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit parties from engaging in discovery
of any type before a Rule 26(f) conference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), courts in the Fourth Circuit
have allowed parties to serve third-party subpoenas before the 26(f) conference if the movant can
show that “good cause” exists. See Moore v. Doe, No. 1:19-cv-01018-LMB-MSN, 2019 WL
13294603, at *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2019) (“Plaintiff established that ‘good cause’ exists for it to
serve a third-party subpoena”); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:23-cv-0546-MOC-SCR,
2023 WL 8720700, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2023) (“Courts routinely find good cause to grant
leave for limited pre-conference discovery to plaintiffs seeking copyright enforcement against
defendants known only by IP addresses”).
The “well-established” test for determining good cause consists of five factors: “(1) a
concrete showing of a prima facie claim of actionable harm; (2) specificity of the discovery
request; (3) the absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information; (4) a central
need for the subpoenaed information; and (5) the party’s expectation of privacy.” Strike 3
Holdings, 2023 WL 8720700, at *1 (citing LHF Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-5, No. 1:17-cv-00151MR, 2017 LW 2960789, at *1 (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2017) and quoting Sony Music Ent. v. Does 140, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). These five factors support allowing Plaintiff
to issue a Rule 45 subpoena to Verizon Fios before the Rule 26(f) conference solely to discover
Defendant’s identity.
First, Plaintiff’s Complaint states a prima facie claim for copyright infringement,
including allegations that it owns 42 copyrighted properties and that Defendant has encroached
Plaintiff’s rights. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 4; see also Strike 3, 2023 WL 8720700, at *1 (holding that
identifying specific works is enough to establish a prima facie claim of infringement).) Second,
Plaintiff’s proposed Rule 45 subpoena seeks only the name and address corresponding to the IP
address, which is narrow enough to satisfy the second factor of the test. Third, Plaintiff has no
other way to identify Defendant other than by issuing a Rule 45 subpoena because the ISP is
2
prohibited from sharing the identifying information without a court order. See id. at *2. Fourth,
the information sought is necessary to effect service on Defendant.
Finally, Defendant has no expectation of privacy under the test because those who share
copyrighted material through an online file-sharing network cannot assert an expectation of
privacy to avoid defending an infringement claim. See id.; LHF Prods., 2017 WL 2960789, at *
2; Arista Recs., LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 115 (2d Cir. 2010).
For these reasons, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow Plaintiff to serve a Rule
45 subpoena on Verizon Fios only to determine the name and address of the person or entity to
whom the ISP assigned the IP address referenced in the Complaint. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is granted as follows:
1.
Plaintiff may serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding it to
provide Plaintiff with the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address
173.66.220.217. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in this same manner on any service
provider identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of internet services to Defendant.
2.
If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), which
states:
The term “cable operator” means 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.
As a “cable operator,” Verizon Fios must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which states:
A cable operator may disclose such personal 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.
by sending a copy of this Order to Defendant.
3
3.
Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45
subpoena served on the ISP to protect and enforce Plaintiff’s rights as stated in its Complaint.
Entered this 7th day of March 2025.
_______________________________
William B. Porter
United States Magistrate Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
4
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?