Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2025 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureEarly DiscoveryProtective OrdersCopyright InfringementRule 26(d)(1)Rule 26(b)(1)Rule 26(c)(1)third-party subpoena

Facts

Strike 3 alleged that it owns copyrights in certain adult entertainment films and that a user associated with IP address 108.31.27.117 used BitTorrent to download and distribute twenty-five copyrighted movies. Strike 3 used its VXN Scan and Cross Reference Tool to detect the BitTorrent transactions and used Maxmind geolocation technology to trace the IP address to the District of Columbia. Because Verizon was the ISP for the subscriber assigned to that IP address, Strike 3 sought the subscriber's name and address to investigate the alleged infringement and effect service. Strike 3 also acknowledged that the subscriber might not be the actual infringer and requested protective measures because the allegations involved adult content.

Issue

Whether the court should permit Strike 3 to serve an ISP subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference to obtain the identity of an unknown defendant, and whether good cause existed for a temporary protective order allowing the subscriber to remain anonymous until an opportunity to challenge the subpoena.

Rule

Before a Rule 26(f) conference, a court may authorize discovery by order under Rule 26(d)(1), but the requested discovery must satisfy Rule 26(b)(1) by being relevant to a party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. In this context, relevance requires a showing that the discovery can be expected to uncover the defendant's identity and that the plaintiff has a good faith belief it will be able to establish personal jurisdiction; proportionality focuses in part on the parties' relative access to the information and the importance of the discovery to resolving the issues. Under Rule 26(c)(1), a court may issue a protective order for good cause to protect against annoyance or embarrassment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Media sued an unknown defendant in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging that a user associated with a specific IP address shared copyrighted files through a peer-to-peer network. Blue Mesa asks to subpoena the internet service provider before the Rule 26(f) conference for only the subscriber’s name and street address, alleging that its tracking software captured the file-sharing activity and that IP geolocation placed the address in the District of Columbia.

Should the court most likely permit the early subpoena?

Explanation. Before a Rule 26(f) conference, discovery may be authorized by court order, but it must satisfy Rule 26(b)(1). In this setting, relevance requires that the discovery can be expected to uncover the defendant’s identity and that the plaintiff has a good-faith belief it will be able to establish personal jurisdiction. Here, the subpoena is limited to identifying information, and the geolocation allegation supports a good-faith basis for jurisdiction in Washington, D.C. (Derived from Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (n.d.).)