Minnesota Court Allows ISP Subpoenas in 40 Strike 3 Holdings Cases

Strike 3 Holdings Minnesota cases moved forward on August 14, 2026, when Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster authorized limited ISP subpoenas in 40 separate John Doe lawsuits. The cases were not merged.

If you received a letter from Comcast, US Internet, Spectrum, or Frontier about a Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit in Minnesota, the court has already authorized the subpoena that seeks your name.

On August 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued an Omnibus Order covering 40 separate Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The order is docketed as DocMinnesota Strike 3 Holdings Omnibus Order. 11 in Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.72.179.4, No. 0:26-cv-02690-PJS-DJF, and it applies to all 40 cases listed below.

This is not a consolidation that merges 40 defendants into one case. Each lawsuit still has its own docket number. The court used one order because the complaints and the early-discovery motions were substantively the same.

Minnesota Case Backlog From Early 2026

Cases that were filed by Strike 3 Holdings LLC as far back as March 2026 were still pending, waiting for the Court to allow ISP Subpoenas to issue. For example, case 0:26-cv-01941-PJS-DJF that was filed back on March 19, 2026 was granted a Second Extension of Time to Effectuate Service of Summons on John Doe Defendant. Plaintiff has until October 16, 2026 to serve Summons and Amended Complaint. In normal circumstances, a defendant must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. That rule is found in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But in these unusual District of Minnesota Strike 3 Holdings cases in 2026, the Court is allowing defendants to be served up to more than 200 days after the initial Complaint was filed.

“

Torrent Defenders® publishes these dockets so people who later Google their IP address or case number can see what is actually on the federal court record.

We do not represent the copyright holders. We represent the people they sue.

What the court allowed

Strike 3 filed these 40 cases between February and July 2026. In each case it asked for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the subscriber’s ISP before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court granted those motions.

The subpoena may seek only:

• the subscriber’s name, and
• the subscriber’s address

for the time period of the alleged activity listed in Exhibit A to that case’s complaint.

The court applied the Arista Records factors used in earlier Minnesota Strike 3 orders and found good cause for limited early discovery. It also said the account holder may not be the person who used the connection. That is why the order includes privacy limits.

Judge Foster noted this is at least the ninth similar Omnibus Order the court has issued on Strike 3 early-discovery motions from 2023 through 2026.

The privacy limits that matter if you just got a letter

These deadlines are in paragraphs 41–46 of the order:

• The subpoena must give the ISP at least 60 days before any production.
• After the ISP is served, it has 14 calendar days to notify the subscriber.
• After that notice, the subscriber has 45 calendar days to seek a protective order, file a responsive pleading, or both.
• Strike 3 must serve a copy of this Order with the subpoena. The ISP must send the Order to the subscriber with the notice.
• Strike 3 may not publicly disclose the subscriber’s identity until the defendant has had a chance to ask the court to proceed anonymously and the court rules.
• If no anonymity motion is filed within 45 days after the identity is disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel, that limited protective order expires.
• Strike 3 must file a status report in each case by October 13, 2026. The report may not include the defendant’s identity.
• No other discovery is authorized at this time.

If a September letter just arrived, those clocks may already be running. Do not assume the case will sit still.

Which ISPs are in this group

The order identifies:

• Comcast Cable — most of the 40 cases
• US Internet Corp — 26-cv-1523, 26-cv-1938, 26-cv-2671, 26-cv-2678, 26-cv-2684, 26-cv-2686
• Spectrum — 26-cv-1944
• Frontier Communications — 26-cv-2691, 26-cv-2693, 26-cv-3382

Which ISPs Received the Subpoena

The August 14, 2026 Omnibus Order names the ISP in each of the 40 cases. If a letter arrived from one of these providers, match the case number or IP address below.

The 40 Minnesota cases

What to Do in the First 48 Hours

1. Keep the ISP letter and any enclosed subpoena or court order.
2. Write down the case number, the IP address, and the date on the letter.
3. Do not call the movie company’s lawyers yourself.
4. Do not post the letter on a forum.
5. Speak with counsel before the ISP production date.

A court-authorized subpoena is not a finding that you downloaded anything. It is permission for Strike 3 to ask the ISP who paid for that internet account. Early advice is still the point where options are widest.

Talk with Antonelli Law

Antonelli Law has represented more than 5,000 clients since 2010 in BitTorrent copyright defense, including more than 2,500 Strike 3 Holdings matters. Consultations are free and confidential, even if you do not hire the firm. Moreover, Antonelli Law has successfully represented hundreds of clients in cases filed by the same Strike 3 Holdings attorney, Jeremy Thompson, who filed these 40 cases in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Book a free confidential consultation →

Or call (312) 201-8310.

Related reading: What Is Strike 3 Holdings? and Strike 3 Holdings Subpoena Guide.

Jeffrey Antonelli

“Great Experience with Antonelli

I hired Jeffrey Antonelli for a copyright infringement issue (Strike3) in Massachusetts. It was a very good decision. He has dealt with many such cases and immediately put me at ease. He ended up negotiating a settlement that was much less than what I told him was my limit. He understood my privacy concerns and ensured that my name stayed out of any communication with opposing counsel, court filings etc. The whole issue was wrapped up within 3 weeks. He charges a non-negligible fee, but it is 100% worth it if you want to settle quickly and quietly and move on.”

→ View original review on Avvo

Book a Free Consultation with Jeffrey Antonelli

Alec Van Dardis

“I had an excellent experience working with Alec. He was very knowledgeable and calm. He was thorough with his explanations, strategic in his approach, and incredibly responsive whenever I had questions. I’m grateful for his support and highly recommend him to anyone needing a skilled and trustworthy attorney.”

→ View original review on Avvo

Book a Free Consultation with Alec Van Dardis

Paul Sanders

“This experience was one of the most stressful experiences I have ever dealt with. Mostly because it came out of no where and I have never been in trouble with the law like this before. From the beginning, Mr. Sanders was so nice and calming. I know he stayed on the phone with longer than he had to just to make sure I was ok. Although I remained stressed, he put me at ease with his knowledge, confidence, and sincerity. The entire process took about 2 1/2 weeks and I was so grateful when it was over. He is a great attorney..”

→ View original review on Avvo

Book a Free Consultation with Paul Sanders

Melissa Ross

“Woking with Melissa was fantastic. She was really effective in communicating with me in layman terms; translating legalize, explaining the process and making me feel I was in really good hands. She was always reachable and extremely prompt in communicating the back and forth between opposing counsel. I couldn’t have asked for more from Melissa. Because of the time zone, I was catching her late in her evenings and she always responded – THANK YOU. Sometimes you get lucky with the initial interview process, and I certainly did.”

→ View original review

Book a Free Consultation with Melissa Ross

This post is legal information, not legal advice for any one case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.