STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC
v.
DOE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to subpoena an ISP for subscriber information, finding good cause shown.
Plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, moved for leave to subpoena Comcast for the name and address of a subscriber associated with a specific IP address …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Early Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
IP ADDRESS 66.177.59.117, Defendant. NO. 3:25-CV-478-MMH-PDB
Order
In this BitTorrent litigation, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, moves for leave to subpoena Comcast Cable or Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, before discovery begins. Doc. 8 (motion); Docs. 8-1 to 8-3 (supporting declarations); Doc. 8-4 (proposed subpoena). [fn 1] From Comcast, Strike 3 wants the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address 66.177.59.117 on February 19, 2025, at 02:50:56. Doc. 8-4 at 1, 4.
Unless authorized by a court order, parties generally cannot begin discovery until after the case-management conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts have permitted early discovery upon a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “Good cause" is hard to define but “generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate
need to take judicial action" after balancing the interests involved. In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F. 2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987).
As in similar cases before this Court, Strike 3 shows good cause. Strike 3 appears to state a claim for copyright infringement. [fn 2] See Doc. 1 (complaint). Strike 3 seeks limited information (only a name and an address). See Doc. 8-4 at 1 (proposed subpoena). And Strike 3 shows it cannot pursue this litigation without the information. See Doc. 8-2 [28 (Patrick Paige's declaration).
Because multiple persons may use a single IP address, the subscriber might not be the alleged infringer. Considering the nature of the alleged copyrighted material, procedural protections—as encouraged by Strike 3 itself, Doc. 8 at 14—are necessary to avoid undue embarrassment.
The Court grants Strike 3's motion, Doc. 8, and permits Strike 3 to immediately serve the subpoena provided with the motion, Doc. 8-4, using the following procedural protections.
1. Strike 3 must include with the subpoena a copy of the
complaint, Doc. 1, and this order.
2. Strike 3 must follow its practice described in its motion
under the heading “Strike 3 Brings its Litigation in Good Faith," Doc. 8 at 5–6.
3. Pending further order, neither party may file anything with the Court identifying the defendant by name. For a summons, Strike 3 should call the clerk's office at (904) 549- 1900, request a blank summons, and complete the summons itself.
4. Within twenty-eight days of receiving from Comcast the
name and address of the subscriber, Strike 3 must provide a copy of this order to the subscriber. The subscriber may obtain legal counsel. Anything the subscriber says or provides might be used against the subscriber.
5. If the parties resolve the dispute, Strike 3 must
expeditiously effect dismissal in accordance with Rule 41, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. If the parties do not resolve the dispute and the defendant wants to remain anonymous, the defendant must move to proceed anonymously with the defendant's first filing, satisfying the standard for proceeding anonymously described in Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F. 3d 1310, 1315–16 (11th Cir. 2011).
Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 20, 2025.
Patricia D. Barksdale United States Magistrate Judge
[fn 1]: In the motion, Strike 3 asks for leave to subpoena “Comcast Cable.” Doc. 8 at 1. The proposed subpoena is to “Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.” Doc. 8-4 at 1. Strike 3 provides no explanation for the difference.
[fn 2]: Having received no adversarial briefing, the Court does not hold that Strike 3 actually states a claim for copyright infringement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (M.D. Fla. 2025)…authorized by a court order, parties generally cannot begin discovery until after the case-management conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts have permitted early discovery upon a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “Good cause" is hard to define but “generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action" after balancing the interests involved. In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987).…
-
…n light of all the surrounding circumstances.””). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (citing Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002)). Here, Plaintiff has alleged ownership of copyright in 28 videos and pleads a prima facie case that Doe Defendant infringed that copy…
-
…authorized by a court order, parties generally cannot begin discovery until after the case-management conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts have permitted early discovery upon a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “Good cause" is hard to define but “generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate 1 In the motion, Strike 3 asks for leave to subpoena “AT&T Internet.” Doc. 9 at 1. The proposed subpoena is to “AT&T Internet Services." Doc.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352 (11th Cir. 1987)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (M.D. Fla. 2025)