Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
| Strike 3 Holdings, LLC |
| John Doe |
| 1:2018cv00958 |
| August 13, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Albany Office |
| Ulster |
| Thomas J McAvoy |
| David E Peebles |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER granting #5 Motion for Discovery for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 9/28/2018. (sal )
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Discovery for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Motion, #2 Memorandum of Law, #3 Exhibit(s) A, #4 Exhibit(s) B, #5 Exhibit(s) C, #6 Exhibit(s) D, #7 Proposed Order/Judgment) Motions referred to David E. Peebles. (James, Jacqueline) |
|
Filing 4
TEXT ORDER granting #3 Letter Request by the plaintiff for permission to file a Motion seeking Leave to File a Third Party Subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) and adjourn without date an Initial Rule 16 Conference until the defendant in this action is named and served. Authorized by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 9/7/2018. (sal )
|
| Filing 3 Letter Motion from Jacqueline M. James for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC requesting Leave to File a Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference and Adjourn Initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference submitted to Judge Peebles . (James, Jacqueline) |
| Filing 2 Report on the Filing and Determination of an Action Regarding Copyrights. (Sent to the Copyright Office via regular mail.) (meb) |
| TEXT NOTICE: Although the plaintiff herein has named John Does in the Complaint, the Clerk's Office will not issue summonses for service of process on a "John Doe" defendant at this time. In the event plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims against these defendants, plaintiff shall take reasonable steps to ascertain their identities. When plaintiff determines the identity of the "John Doe" defendant, plaintiff may seek to amend the pleading to add the properly named defendants pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15 and summons will be issued at that time. (meb) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against John Doe (Filing fee $400 receipt number ANYNDC-4477803) filed by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A)(meb) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: John Doe | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Jacqueline M. James |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
