STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC
v.
JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 47.202.125.86

M.D. Fla. | 2023-03-06
No. 8:08
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 29 cases

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.


Holding

Plaintiff has shown good cause for expedited discovery to identify the defendant via a third-party subpoena to the ISP.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, alleges copyright infringement by an unnamed defendant using a specific IP address. Plaintiff seeks to serve a third…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff Strike3 Holdings, LLC, alleges direct copyright infringement against John Doe, an unnamed defendant, for unlawfully reproducing and distributing Strike3’s copyrighted adult films. See Compl. (Doe. 1.) Strike3 now moves for leave to serve a third-

party subpoena on Doe’s Internet Service Provider (ISP), Frontier Communications, to learn Doe’s true identity prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. See Motion to Serve Third-Party Subpoena (Doc. 9.) Under Rule 26(d)(1), a party generally may not seek discovery from any source before the Rule 26(f) conference absent an order of the Court or other special circumstance. The Court may grant a party expedited discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference upon a showing of “good cause.” See Platinum Mfg. Int'l Inc. v. UniNet Imaging, Inc., No. 8:08-

cv-310, 2008 WL 927558, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2008) (Pizzo, Mag. J.) (quotation omitted). “In cases involving infringement via the internet, courts often evaluate good cause by considering factors such as the concreteness of the plaintiffs 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.” Manny Film LLC v. Doe, No. 15-cv-507, 2015 WL 12850566, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) Jenkins, Mag. J.) (citing Arista Records v. Doe3, 604 F. 3d

110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010)). Strike3 has shown good cause for expedited discovery. First, Strike3 alleges a concrete prima facie case of infringement. The Complaint states that Strike3 holds copyrights for several adult films that have been copied and distributed by Doe without permission or authority through the use of the BitTorrent protocol, as demonstrated through a forensic investigation which reasonably confirms that Doe’s IP address was being used on the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network to reproduce and display Plaintiff's copyrighted work. See Compl.; Declaration of David Williamson (Doc. 9-1.) Next, Strike

1. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(£) (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff may serve the Defendant’s ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena to determine the name and address of the person to whom the ISP assigned IP address 47.202.125.86. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena on any other ISP that may be later identified in response to the initial subpoena. 3. Plaintiff shall attach a copy of the Complaint, (Doc. 1), its attachments, and this Order to any subpoena.

4, Any ISP that receives a subpoena under this Order shall not assess any charge to Plaintiff in advance of providing the information requested in the subpoena; however, an ISP may elect to charge a reasonable amount for the costs of production. 5. Any ISP that receives a subpoena under this Order shall preserve all subpoenaed information pending the ISP delivering such information to Plaintiff or the final resolution of a motion to quash the subpoena. 6. Any information disclosed to Plaintiff in response to a subpoena may be used by Plaintiff solely for the purposes of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff's rights as set forth in its Complaint. 7. Once the identity of the Defendant is discovered, Plaintiff must notify the Defendant, or his or her counsel if represented, of Plaintiff's intent to name and serve the Defendant at least fourteen (14) days prior to seeking an issuance of a summons from the Clerk for the identified Defendant. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 6, 2023.

fatten Kimball Missle athryn’ Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge

Footnotes
3 has clearly identified the specific information sought through the requested discovery— Doe’s name and address—so that it may effectuate service of process on him in this case. Declaration of David Williamson at 12-13. Lastly, Strike 3 has successfully shown that it has no other way to obtain Doe’s identity using only his IP address than to seek Doe’s identity from his ISP, here Frontier Communications. See Motion to Serve Third-Party Subpoena. Other courts have frequently concluded there is good cause for limited, early discovery on similar facts. See, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 8:15-cv-2314, 2015 WL 12856086, *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2015) (McCoun II, Mag. J.) (granting the same motion under nearly identical circumstances); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 18-cv-2648, 2019 WL 78987, at *3—4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2019) (Caproni, J.) (denying the defendant’s motion to quash a third-party subpoena that the plaintiff served on the defendant’s ISP to obtain the defendant’s name and address). Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown good cause to issue a third-party subpoena prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (29 total)

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2012 WL 1623862 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …e 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.” Manny Film LLC v. Doe, No. 15-cv-507-T-36EAJ, 2015 WL 12850566, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) (citation omitted). Here, Strike 3 has shown good cause for expedited discovery. First, it alleges a concrete prima facie case of infringement. The Complaint states that Strike 3 holds copyrights for 37 adult films t…
    1 / 2
  • …alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information; and the need for the subpoenaed information to advance the claim." 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 2 ---PAGE 3--- Case 8:25-cv-01400-SDM-CPT Document 7 Filed 06/13/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID 88 18, 2015)). Some courts also consider a defendant's expectation of privacy. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2019 WL 340712, a…
  • …ase 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." Manny Film LLC v. Doe, No. 8:15-cv-507-T- 36EAJ, 2015 WL 12850566, *1 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2015). Strike 3 has shown good cause for expedited discovery. First, Strike 3 alleges a prima facie case of infringement. The complaint says that Strike 3 holds copyrights for several adult films that have been copied and dis…

Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw