Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe — Protective Order Governs Early ISP Subpoena in Copyright Case

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against a John Doe defendant identified only as the subscriber assigned IP address 24.62.3.104. Because the defendant's true identity was unknown, Strike 3 moved for leave to file third-party early discovery, and the court granted that motion in a prior docket ruling. The protective order issued on November 4, 2026 (Document 14, No. 3:26-cv-1613-SFR) sets out the limitations and conditions governing that early discovery.

The order expressly recognizes the misidentification risk inherent in IP-address-based suits: persons other than the defendant internet subscriber may have used the IP address in question, such that the defendant might be innocent of the alleged infringement. The court therefore built notice, an opportunity to challenge, and confidentiality protections into the subpoena process before any identifying information may be disclosed.

The Court’s Holding

Within 14 days of the order, Strike 3 may serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the defendant's internet service provider, Comcast Cable, to obtain the defendant's name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 must serve a copy of the complaint and the protective order along with the subpoena and must file proof of service on the docket. The order expressly bars Strike 3 from seeking the defendant's e-mail addresses or telephone numbers absent further order of the court.

Comcast must notify the defendant within 60 days after service of the subpoena, serving a copy of the complaint, the protective order, and the subpoena, together with notice that Comcast will disclose the subpoenaed information to Strike 3 unless the defendant files a motion to quash or seeks other relief within 60 days. Comcast may not turn over the defendant's identifying information before that 60-day period expires, and if the defendant or Comcast files a motion to quash or modify, or the defendant seeks to litigate anonymously, disclosure is barred unless and until the court instructs Comcast to comply. Comcast must also preserve any subpoenaed information pending resolution of a timely motion to quash.

The order imposes strict use and anonymity protections. Information disclosed to Strike 3 may be used solely for this litigation, and Strike 3 may not disclose the defendant's name, address, or other identifying information (other than the ISP number) or threaten to do so. The defendant may litigate anonymously until he or she has had an opportunity to address potential misidentification, including challenging the technology used to identify the IP address, and any filings containing identifying information must be filed under seal. Settlement terms must be filed under seal; a dismissal for reasons other than settlement must identify those reasons; failure to comply brings sanctions, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order even after dismissal.

Key Takeaways

• A copyright holder may take early third-party discovery to identify a John Doe internet subscriber only under a protective order that requires notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena.
• Comcast must give the subscriber 60 days' notice with copies of the complaint, order, and subpoena, and may not disclose identifying information before that period expires.
• Strike 3's subpoena is limited to the defendant's name and address; e-mail addresses and telephone numbers are off limits absent further court order.
• The defendant may proceed anonymously, challenge the IP-identification technology, and file identifying information under seal until the court orders otherwise.
• Disclosed information is restricted to this litigation, settlement terms are sealed, and violations of the order carry sanctions with retained jurisdiction even after dismissal.

Why It Matters

This order illustrates the procedural safeguards courts routinely impose in copyright cases against anonymous internet defendants before an ISP is compelled to reveal a subscriber's identity. By requiring advance notice, a 60-day window to move to quash, preservation of the data, and strict limits on use and disclosure, the court balances the copyright holder's need to identify an alleged infringer against the risk that the IP address points to the wrong person.

The court's express recognition that the subscriber might be innocent of the alleged infringement underscores the evidentiary limits of IP-address identification in online copyright enforcement and the judiciary's role in preventing abuse of early discovery against unidentified internet users.