Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.94.13.20
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:25-cv-01345
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 24
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (33 consolidated cases), Magistrate Judge Foster granted Strike 3's requests to serve early subpoenas on internet service providers to learn the names and addresses of anonymous defendants accused of illegally downloading and sharing copyrighted adult films, while also imposing privacy protections for those defendants.
The 33 anonymous 'John Doe' defendants (internet subscribers identified only by IP address) who may be identified through subpoenas to their ISPs; the ISPs (Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, and Spectrum) who must respond to those subpoenas; and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as the plaintiff pursuing copyright infringement claims.
What happened
In 33 separate cases filed in the District of Minnesota between April and June 2025, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC — a company that distributes copyrighted adult films — sued anonymous 'John Doe' defendants identified only by their internet protocol (IP) addresses. Strike 3 alleges each defendant used a file-sharing technology called BitTorrent to illegally download and distribute Strike 3's movies. Because Strike 3 only knows each defendant by their IP address, it asked the court for permission to send legal information requests (subpoenas) to each defendant's internet service provider (ISP) before the normal stage of the lawsuit when such information-gathering is permitted, so it could learn each defendant's real name and address.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties normally cannot seek information from outside sources until after the parties have met and discussed the case in what is called a Rule 26(f) conference. Courts can allow earlier information-gathering, however, when there is 'good cause' — meaning the need for the information outweighs any harm to the party being asked to provide it. The court applied a five-factor test from a case called Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, looking at whether Strike 3 has a real claim, how specific the information request is, whether there are other ways to get the information, whether the case can move forward without it, and the unnamed defendant's privacy interests.
Magistrate Judge Foster granted all 33 motions, finding that Strike 3 stated a valid copyright claim, the subpoenas are narrowly limited to each defendant's name and address, there is no other practical way to identify the defendants, the cases cannot proceed without that information, and privacy protections built into the order adequately protect defendants' interests. The order includes several safeguards: ISPs must notify the subscriber within 14 days of receiving a subpoena; subscribers have 45 days to seek a court order blocking disclosure or to respond; Strike 3 cannot publicly disclose any defendant's identity until that defendant has had a chance to ask the court to remain anonymous; and Strike 3 must file a status report in each case by September 23, 2025.
The detailed version
This omnibus order, issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster in the District of Minnesota on July 28, 2025, addresses 33 nearly identical cases filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC ('Strike 3') against anonymous 'John Doe' defendants identified only by IP addresses. The cases were filed between April and June 2025 (case numbers 25-cv-1345 through 25-cv-2732).
Background and Claims Strike 3 distributes copyrighted adult films through websites and DVDs. It alleges that each John Doe defendant used BitTorrent — a peer-to-peer file distribution protocol — to illegally download and redistribute Strike 3's copyrighted movies without authorization. Strike 3 says its proprietary infringement detection system, called VXN, identified each defendant's IP address as the source of the infringing activity. Strike 3 cannot identify the defendants by name; only their respective internet service providers (ISPs) — identified as Comcast Cable, US Internet Corp, or Spectrum depending on the case — can match the IP addresses to subscriber identities.
Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally bars a party from seeking discovery before the parties have held a planning conference under Rule 26(f). Courts may allow earlier ('expedited') discovery by court order when good cause exists. The Eighth Circuit has not established a specific standard, but courts in the District of Minnesota apply a 'good cause' test. In similar Strike 3 cases dating to 2018, courts in this district applied the five-factor balancing test from Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010), examining: (1) the concreteness of the plaintiff's prima facie (i.e., on-its-face sufficient) claim; (2) the specificity of the discovery request; (3) whether alternative means exist to obtain the information; (4) whether the information is necessary to advance the claim; and (5) the responding party's expectation of privacy.
Analysis and Ruling Applying the Arista Records factors, Judge Foster found good cause for expedited discovery in all 33 cases:
- Strike 3 adequately alleged the two elements of copyright infringement — ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements — by alleging ownership, unauthorized copying, and unauthorized distribution by each defendant.
- The subpoenas are narrowly tailored, seeking only each defendant's name and address.
- No alternative means exist: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) subpoena process is unavailable when an ISP acts merely as a conduit for data between users, as the Eighth Circuit held in In re Charter Communications, 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005), leaving the 'John Doe' lawsuit method as the appropriate avenue.
- The cases cannot proceed to service of process or litigation without identifying the defendants.
- Privacy concerns are mitigated by the protective order provisions described below.
The court expressly acknowledged that the subscriber associated with an IP address may not be the actual infringer, and that the subject matter (adult films) is sensitive and potentially embarrassing, warranting protective safeguards.
Protective Order Provisions (Paragraphs 34–39) - Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on each defendant's ISP, limited solely to the subscriber's name and address during the period of alleged infringement. - Subpoenas must give ISPs at least 60 days before production is required. - ISPs must notify the subscriber within 14 calendar days of receiving the subpoena. - Subscribers then have 45 calendar days to seek a protective order (a court order blocking disclosure), file a responsive pleading, or both. - Strike 3 must serve a copy of the court's order alongside each subpoena. - Strike 3 may not publicly disclose any defendant's identity until the defendant has had the opportunity to file a motion to proceed anonymously and the court rules on it. If no such motion is filed within 45 days of disclosure to Strike 3's counsel, this privacy protection expires. - Any motion by a defendant to proceed anonymously that includes identifying information may be temporarily filed under seal. - Strike 3 must file a status report in each of the 33 cases by September 23, 2025, describing discovery progress but not disclosing any defendant's identity.
All 33 motions were granted. This is the eighth omnibus order of this type Judge Foster has issued in similar Strike 3 cases filed in this district since 2023.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.