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-1121-TPB-MRM

JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 69.73.78.61, an individual,

Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, alleges copyright infringement against John Doe, an unnamed defendant, for unlawfully reproducing and distributing Strike 3’s copyrighted adult films. (Doc. 1). Strike 3 now moves for leave to serve a third- party subpoena on Doe's Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), to learn Doe's identity prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. (Doc. 8.)1 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

1 Plaintiff’s motion states that Doe’s ISP is “WideOpenWest,” while its proposed subpoena is addressed to “WOW! Internet-Phone-Cable.” See (Doc. 8, at 5; Doc. 9-1). The latter appears to be a tradename used by the former, but Plaintiff should take care that its subpoena properly names the ISP. 26(f) conference upon a showing of good cause. See United States v. Gachette, No. 6:14-cv-1539-Orl-37TBS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2014); Platinum Mfg. Int'l, Inc. v. UniNet Imaging, Inc., No. 8:08-cv-310-T-27MAP,

, 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. 8:15-cv-507-T-36-EAJ,

, at

*1 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) (citing Arista Records v. Doe 3,

(2d Cir. 2010)). 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 several adult films that have been copied and distributed by Doe without permission or authority using the BitTorrent system, as demonstrated through a forensic investigation which reasonably confirms that Doe’s IP address

was being used on the BitTorrent network to reproduce and display Plaintiff's copyrighted work. (Doc. 1; Doc. 8). Next, Strike 3 has identified the specific information sought through the requested discovery – Doe’s name and address – so that it may effectuate service of process on Doe in this case. (Doc. 8, at 8-10). Finally, Strike 3 has successfully shown that it has no way to obtain Doe’s identity using only Doe’s IP address other than to seek Doe's identity from Doe’s ISP. (Doc. 8, at 9-10). Strike 3 has further shown that the subpoenaed information is required for Strike 3 to serve Doe, to conduct the Rule 26(f) conference, and to advance its infringement claim. (Doc. 8, at 10-11). Other courts have concluded there was good

cause for limited, early discovery on similar facts. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 8:23-cv-838-SDM-AAS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2023); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 8:22-cv-765-KKM-CPT,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2022); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:19-cv-508-J-34JRK,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2019). Thus, the Court concludes that Strike 3 has shown good cause to issue a third-party subpoena prior to the Rule

26(f) conference, subject to the procedural safeguards set forth below. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. “Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference” (Doc. 8) is GRANTED as set forth herein. 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 69.73.78.61. 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 Defendant’s 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. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 12th day of July, 2023.

| A j fi ff Fecha he ) — —_ + jo! — TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4