Opinions and documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited
liability company,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:23-cv-578-SCB-AAS
JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned
IP address 96.59.137.46, an individual,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
In this copyright infringement case, Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC
(Strike 3) alleges John Doe (Doe), an unnamed defendant, unlawfully
reproduced and distributed Strike 3’s copyrighted adult films. (Doc. 1). Strike
3 moves for leave to serve a third-party subpoena on Doe’s Internet Service
Provider (ISP), Spectrum, to learn Doe’s identity prior to a Rule 26(f)
conference. (Doc. 8).
Under Rule 26(f), parties must confer as soon as practicable before a
scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f)(1). Typically, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the
parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), unless authorized by court
order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). A court may authorize early discovery for the
1
convenience of the parties or witnesses and in the interests of justice. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(d)(2). “Courts who have dealt with [motions for early discovery]
generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown ‘good cause’ for the early
discovery.” Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-3, 932, No. 11-cv-545-FtM-29SPC, 2012
WL 1623862, at * 2 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2012) (citation and quotations omitted);
Platinum Mfg. Int’l, Inc. v. UniNet Imaging, Inc., No. 8:08-cv-310-T-27MAP,
2008 WL 927558, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2008). “In cases involving
infringement via 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.” Manny Film LLC v. Doe, No.
15-cv-507-T-36EAJ, 2015 WL 12850566, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2015)
(citation omitted).
Strike 3 has shown good cause for expedited discovery. First, Strike 3
alleges a concrete prima facie case of infringement. The complaint states that
Strike 3 holds copyrights for twenty-nine adult films that Doe, using the
BitTorrent protocol, copied and distributed without permission or authority.
See (Doc. 1, Ex. A). A forensic investigation reasonably confirms that Doe’s IP
address was being used on the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network to reproduce
and distribute Strike 3’s copyrighted work. (Doc. 1, ¶ 28). Second, Strike 3
clearly identified the specific information sought through early discovery: Doe’s
name and address. (Doc. 8, p. 2). Strike 3 needs this information for service of
process. Finally, Strike 3 has shown it has no way to obtain Doe’s identity using
his IP address, other than to request Doe’s identity from Spectrum, Doe’s ISP.
(Id. at pp. 9–10). In similar situations, other courts have concluded there is
good cause for limited, early discovery. See, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe,
No. 8:15-cv-2314-T-17TBM, 2015 WL 12856086, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6,
2015) (granting early discovery under nearly identical circumstances); Strike
3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 18-cv-2648(VEC), 2019 WL 78987, at *3–4
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019) (denying the defendant’s motion to quash third party
subpoena that the plaintiff served on defendant’s ISP to obtain the defendant’s
name and address).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Strike 3’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior
to Rule 26(f) Conference (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.
2. Strike 3’s may serve Doe’s ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena to
determine the name and address of the person to whom Spectrum assigned the
IP address 96.59.137.46. Strike 3 may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena on any
other ISP that the response to the initial subpoena may identify.
3. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the complaint and exhibits and this
order to any subpoena.
4, Any ISP that receives a subpoena under this order must assess no
charge to Strike 3 before providing the information requested; 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 must preserve
all subpoenaed information pending the ISP delivering such information to
Strike 3 or the final resolution of a motion to quash the subpoena.
6. Strike 8 may use information disclosed to it in response to a
subpoena solely to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights as stated in its
complaint.
7. Once Strike 3 discovers Doe’s identity, and at least fourteen days
before requesting the Clerk issue a summons for the identified the defendant,
Strike 3 must notify the defendant (or counsel, if represented) of Strike 3’s
intent to name and serve the defendant.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 30, 20238.
Aranda Arno th Sanne
United States Magistrate Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.