Strike 3 Holdings ISP Subpoena Orders Are Out — Deadlines Depend on the Court
Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena practice in September 2026 is not one national deadline. After the mid-August filings, courts in New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Florida, California, and Illinois allowed providers to identify John Doe accounts — on clocks that differ by judge. By early September, several courts had already allowed subpoenas on internet providers. That is when ISP letters start to arrive.
A Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena is the court paper that lets the ISP (Internet provider) identify the account. It is not a national form with one deadline.
Prior post: Strike 3 Holdings Filed a Mid-August Wave — ISP Notices Hit in September
This post is educational. It is not legal advice about your facts. An ISP letter is usually notice that an Internet provider (called an ISP) was ordered to identify the name and address of the Subscriber of an account. It is not automatically going to result in a summons with your legal name on the caption.
Antonelli Law has defended people and businesses in BitTorrent and ISP-subpoena copyright matters since 2010, including a large volume of Strike 3 Holdings matters and claims involving many other copyright holders. We do not use fake urgency clocks in public writing.
If you have a letter, match the case number on the letter to the section below. Also look at your Subpoena compliance date. If those dates are different, consult an attorney. Do not borrow a New York deadline for a Florida case.
What changed for Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena letters in September
A complaint in mid-August does not by itself give Strike 3 your name. The next step is a court order allowing a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP. Different judges put different clocks on that order.
Some letters may already be in the mail. In 1:26-cv-05170 (Eastern District of New York), plaintiff’s counsel told the court on September 1 that the ISP had mailed the subscriber that same day.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP Subpoena Deadlines by Court
Your Objection Window Depends on Jurisdiction – Florida Middle District is Shortest; Brooklyn and Manhattan the Longest
Orlando’s 14-day objection window is the shortest in this set. Brooklyn and Manhattan are much longer. Illinois granted the subpoena without printing a subscriber clock in the minute entry.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena cases in the Eastern District of New York
August 21 Brooklyn filings. Four dockets now have discovery orders.
If the letter is 05170, treat September 1, 2026 as the likely start of the 60-day window.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena order in the Southern District of New York
1:26-cv-07157 (IP 184.152.216.239). Judge J. Paul Oetken. Exhibit A: New York, NY; Spectrum; 25 works.
This is not the Brooklyn group. Oetken allowed a subpoena for name and current and permanent address. He rejected Strike 3’s proposed order as too thin and entered his own. The subscriber has 60 days from service of his order to move to quash or to proceed anonymously.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena timing in Massachusetts
1:26-cv-13825 (IP 173.48.222.239). Complaint August 18. On September 8 Strike 3 filed the discovery motion and Judge Angel Kelley granted it the same day. ISP: Verizon Fios. Twenty-four works alleged.
Verizon has 15 days after it is served to notify the subscriber. The subscriber then has 30 days to move. That is not a Brooklyn 60/60 calendar.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena rules in Maryland
The Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena orders signed by Judge Abelson use a 30-day objection window after the provider notifies the subscriber. Three Does, one judge (Adam B. Abelson), two providers, two cities.
A subscriber who wants to stay anonymous on the public docket must still give name, address, and phone to the Clerk on Exhibit C — not to Strike 3. Objection window: 30 days after ISP notice, then 14 days for the ISP to produce if no motion is filed.
03281’s exhibit also lists alleged dates in 2024 and 2025, not only August 2026.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena clock in Orlando
Judge Hoffman Price allowed name, physical address, telephone, and e-mail. The subscriber has 14 days from the ISP notice to move to quash. That is the tightest clock in this set. The order also allows a follow-on subpoena on another ISP and requires 14 days’ written notice before Strike 3 asks for a summons that names the subscriber.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP Subpoena Practice in the Central District of California
2:26-cv-09315 (IP 66.215.198.14). Exhibit A: Rosemead, CA; Spectrum; 25 works. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym signed the order on September 9. District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. is assigned.
Number of Days Before Disclosure Clock: 30 / 30 / 10. Name and address only.
On August 21, Judge Mark C. Scarsi (Chair of the Case Management and Assignment Committee) entered a text-only order: all related Strike 3 Holdings cases in the district go to Hatter, with Pym on discovery, under control number 5:18-cv-00787-TJH-(SPx). That is an assignment rule. It is not a finding that every California letter is the Rosemead case.
Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena grant in the Northern District of Illinois
1:26-cv-09853 (IP 24.15.152.51). Judge Charles P. Kocoras. Exhibit A: Plainfield, IL; Comcast Cable; 25 works. September 2 minute order: motion granted; status report due October 2; September 17 presentment stricken.
Read the Comcast letter for the provider’s disclosure date.
Separate case: 1:26-cv-09858. Strike 3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on August 18 — the day after assignment to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman (Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz). A next-day dismissal after assignment is a pattern to watch. It is not a settlement, and it is not 09853.
What a Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena letter is — and is Not
It is usually a notice that the court allowed the provider to identify the account tied to an assigned IP address and a timestamp.
It is not proof that the person who pays the bill downloaded the files. Several of the orders above say that in so many words.
It is also not a reason to file a pro se paper that puts your own name on the public docket without understanding what that filing does.
First 48 hours after a Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena letter
- Match the case number, IP, and court on the letter to the table above.
- Find the mailing date and the objection deadline in that court’s order — 14 days in the Orlando examples, 30 in Maryland and C.D. Cal. 09315, 60 in the Brooklyn and Manhattan examples.
- Do not assume Verizon Fios, Verizon 5G Home, Spectrum, and Comcast use the same envelope or the same calendar.
- Do not post the letter on social media.
- If you want advice about your papers, speak with a lawyer who will look at those papers.
We represent the people these suits target, not Strike 3 Holdings.
What this 300-case list shows
The cases are copyright suits against “John Doe” subscribers. Many captions include an IP address. Some say only “Doe.” Districts in the list include:
- Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
- Central District of California, Los Angeles office (2:)
- Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas
- Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio
- Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania
- Eastern District of Virginia
- Middle and Western Districts of Tennessee
- Eastern District of Wisconsin
- District of Minnesota (two additional cases after the earlier group of 40)
Related Torrent Defenders® posts:
- Strike 3 Holdings Filed a Mid-August Wave — ISP Notices Hit in September
- Minnesota Court Allows ISP Subpoenas in 40 Strike 3 Holdings Cases
Illinois — search the IP on your letter
Chicago captions in this batch include the IP address.
73.111.23.70
207.237.216.16
98.46.110.82
73.36.242.0
108.224.154.187
69.231.234.92
73.22.199.154
99.118.236.247
98.220.65.1
24.15.152.51
149.75.34.180
50.247.151.142 — dismissed without prejudice Aug. 18
73.73.201.113 — filed Aug. 17
1:26-cv-09858 was assigned August 17, 2026 to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman (Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz). The next day Strike 3 filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
Minnesota — two more after the group of 40
0:26-cv-03684 — IP 73.94.24.200
0:26-cv-03685 — IP 76.156.71.242
Filed August 19, 2026. Separate from the 40 dockets in the mid-August Minnesota order.
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.
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 c”
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 trustwort.”
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 j.”
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.”
This post is legal information, not legal advice for any one case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd.
Share! Save Someone From Being Sued
What To Do If You Have A Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit
Bodyguard Productions Inc Suing Chicagoans for “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” Movie Downloads – ISP Subpoena Defense
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC Files Another 9 New Lawsuits in MARYLAND – ISP Subpoena Defense
About Author
JAntonelli
Jeffrey Antonelli is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois and is admitted to numerous federal courts around the country. He has been a civil litigator nearly 25 years in a broad range of actions representing corporations and individuals as plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal court. Jeffrey has been interviewed by the media many times, including Bloomberg BNA, NBC, The New York Times, Chicago Lawyer, Chicago Tribune, and the longstanding lawyer’s publication Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Prior to forming Antonelli Law Ltd. in 2007 Jeffrey worked for several litigation boutiques in Chicago’s Loop as well as a full service firm. His litigation experience includes hotly contested issues in intellectual property, business, insurance, and consumer fraud. He is an adviser to the Illinois Board of Higher Education Advisory Council for Private Business and Vocational Schools (PBVS), and was a member of the Illinois State Bar Association Education Law Section Council from 2012-2013. Jeffrey is especially proud of his work representing hundreds of students defrauded by improperly accredited educational institutions, including as certified class counsel. Before attending law school, Jeffrey was interested first in business, and then in biomedical ethics. These interests led him to graduate from the nation’s largest philosophy department at Loyola University in Chicago, where some of his favorite (and most challenging) subjects were cognitive science and philosophy of science. During college he held positions at the University of Chicago’s Ben May Institute; as a medical assistant for a University of Chicago foot and ankle surgeon; and volunteered in the emergency room at the University of Chicago Hospitals. These experiences led to studying health law at the DePaul College of Law where Jeffrey earned his law degree and a certificate in health law. At that time DePaul’s Institute for Health Law was consistently ranked in the top 10 health law specialty programs nationwide. During law school Jeffrey immersed himself in studying the practical and public policy aspects of health care through internships at the American Medical Association in Chicago, and on Capitol Hill at the Governmental Relations Office of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, DC. Jeffrey has concentrated in civil litigation throughout his legal career, and is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois federal court, and all federal courts of Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In addition, he is a member of the DuPage County Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association. Jeffrey prides himself on his strong personal ideals, passionate, ethical advocacy, and working hard to bring the best possible results for his clients. He also maintains a special interest in cases involving fraud. Whether due to good parenting, his family’s law enforcement employment, undergraduate studies in philosophy including ethics, or a fortuitous outcome of good breeding, one essence of Jeffrey’s character is a drive to root out the truth behind fraudulent practices.