Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 4:2023cv00106 - Document 6 (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Applications for Extension of Time Within Which To Effectuate Service on John Doe Defendants 5 is hereby GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/12/2023. (rpc, )

Download PDF

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe Doc. 6 Case 4:23-cv-00106-ALM Document 6 Filed 06/12/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 62 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. § § § § JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 70.121.19.190 § § § CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-565-ALM LEAD CASE JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 70.119.84.107 § § § CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-645-ALM JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS § § § CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-882-ALM § § § CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-884-ALM § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-885-ALM 47.185.150.56 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 47.186.67.45 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 172.124.179.96 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 47.234.195.202 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.180.7.87 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 107.138.115.191 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 47.185.236.69 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 104.187.79.193 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 35.146.251.7 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-889-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-890-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-891-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-950-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-951-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-50-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-51-ALM Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:23-cv-00106-ALM Document 6 Filed 06/12/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 63 47.185.213.202 § JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS § § § § § § § § § § § § 104.7.155.163 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.183.183.152 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.191.15.152 JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.180.24.205 CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-106-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-270-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-273-ALM CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-275-ALM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s various motions styled as Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Effectuate Service on John Doe Defendant. Having considered the motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motions should be GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings LLC (“Strike 3”) owns the copyright for a number of adult films that it distributes via its streaming websites and DVDs. In each of the consolidated cases, Strike 3 alleges that the John Doe Defendants (“John Does”) used a BitTorrent protocol to steal Strike 3’s work on a “grand scale.”1 Using the protocol, the John Does downloaded Strike 3’s films and redistributed those films to others without Strike 3’s permission, thereby infringing Strike 3’s copyrights. Strike 3 discovered that the various John Does infringed their copyrights by utilizing 1 BitTorrent refers to “[a] proprietary name for: a peer-to-peer file transfer protocol for sharing large amounts of data over the Internet, in which each part of a file downloaded by a user is transferred to other users in turn” or “a software client which transfers files using this protocol.” OXFORD ENG. DICTIONARY (3d ed. 2012). 2 Case 4:23-cv-00106-ALM Document 6 Filed 06/12/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 64 an infringement detection system, which identified the John Does by their IP addresses. However, Strike 3 did not have any other identifying information, including the John Does’ names, addresses, or contact information. In order to find out this information, Strike 3 filed motions to serve thirdparty subpoenas on the internet service providers (“ISPs”) for the various John Does. The Court has since granted these motions. Now, Strike 3 asks the Court to extend the deadlines to effectuate service of process in several of these cases. Strike 3 alleges that the ordinary deadlines have passed, but it needs an extension to serve the John Does because the Court had not yet ruled on Strike 3’s motions to serve the ISPs. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the guidelines to determine what constitutes valid service of process. Under Rule 4(m), a plaintiff must ordinarily serve a defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). If the plaintiff fails to do so within the 90-day period, the court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Id. “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id.; see also Dotson v. Tunica-Biloxi Gaming Comm’n, 835 F. App’x 710, 713 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2767 (2021). The plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate good cause. Dotson, 835 F. App’x at 713. “[G]ood cause under Rule 4(m) requires at least as much as would be required to show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice.” Gartin v. Par Pharm. Companies, Inc., 289 F. App’x 688, 692 (5th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up) (citation omitted). “Additionally, some ‘showing of good faith on the part of the party 3 Case 4:23-cv-00106-ALM Document 6 Filed 06/12/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 65 seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified is normally required.’” Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 776 F.2d 1304, 1306 (5th Cir. 1985)). Courts also have discretion to extend the time for service even if the plaintiff fails to show good cause. Dotson, 835 F. App’x at 713 (citing Thrasher, 709 F.3d at 511). ANALYSIS The Court finds that Strike 3 has demonstrated good cause for extending the 90-day period for service of process. Before Strike 3’s motions to serve subpoenas were granted, Strike 3 only had the John Does’ IP addresses and no other identifying information—making service of process difficult, if not impossible. The Court also did not grant Strike 3’s motions until after the normal service-of-process deadline. Therefore, Strike 3’s failure to serve the John Does within the 90-day period under Rule 4(m) was justifiable. In addition, Strike 3 still needs time to gather the John Does’ information from the relevant ISPs after they respond to the third-party subpoenas. Given the limited information Strike 3 had, as well as Strike 3’s need to wait for the ISPs’ responses, the Court will extend the deadline for Strike 3 to serve the relevant John Does. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. SA-19-CV-823-OLG, 2019 WL 13198063, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019) (granting extension of time to serve defendants only known by their IP addresses). The Court grants Strike 3 an additional 60 days to serve the relevant defendants. CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Applications for Extension of Time Within Which To Effectuate Service on John Doe Defendants (Case No. 4:22-cv-882, Dkt. #5); (Case No. 4:22-cv-885, Dkt. #5); (Case No. 4:22-cv-889, Dkt. #5); (Case No. 4:22-cv-890, Dkt. #5); (Case No. 4:22-cv-891, Dkt. #5); (Case No. 4:22-cv-950, Dkt. #5); (Case No. 4:22-cv- 4 Case 4:23-cv-00106-ALM Document 6 Filed 06/12/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 66 951, Dkt. #5); (Case No. 4:23-cv-50, Dkt. #5), (Case No. 4:23-cv-51, Dkt. #5); and (Case No. . 4:23-cv-106, Dkt. #5) are hereby GRANTED. Strike 3 has an additional 60 days from the date of this Order to serve the John Doe Defendants in the above-named cases. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 12th day of June, 2023. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.