Strike 3 Holdings New York Lawsuits: Trends Through November 2026

If your internet provider sent you a letter about a Strike 3 Holdings case in New York, this report shows where these cases are being filed, how New York federal judges are handling them, and what usually comes next. Call or tap (312) 201-8310 for a free, confidential consultation with Torrent Defenders®, a practice of Antonelli Law®.

How many Strike 3 Holdings New York lawsuits were filed from May to November 2026?

Strike 3 Holdings filed 284 New York federal lawsuits from May 3 to November 11, 2026. The first six months of that stretch, May 3 to November 2, had 280 cases, compared with 252 cases from November 3, 2025 to May 2, 2026. Four more cases followed on November 4, 2026, all in the Western District.

The six-month growth came mostly from the two New York City courts. The Eastern District added 18 cases and the Southern District added 11. Upstate filings were nearly flat until the November 4 Western District wave, which brought that court to 17 cases since May 3.

Counts are federal cases with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as plaintiff, by filing date, as of November 11, 2026.

How did the monthly filings break down?

May 2026 was the busiest month, with 69 New York cases. Monthly totals then settled between 30 and 45. October 2026 had 30 new cases, almost all in the Eastern District. November 2026 has 17 so far: 12 Southern District cases and 1 Northern District case on November 2, and 4 Western District cases on November 4.

Counts by filing date, as of November 11, 2026.

For comparison, the prior six months ran Nov. 3–30, 2025: 64, December 2025: 51, January 2026: 27, February 2026: 40, March 2026: 38, April 2026: 32.

When were the biggest filing waves?

Strike 3 Holdings files New York cases in batches, usually over a few business days in the second half of the month:

• May 14–21, 2026: 69 cases, including 29 on May 20.
• June 16–18, 2026: 45 cases.
• July 21–23, 2026: 44 cases, including 30 on July 21.
• August 20–28, 2026: 36 cases.
• September 22–29, 2026: 43 cases.
• October 28–30, 2026: 30 cases.
• November 2, 2026: 13 cases, 12 in the Southern District and one in the Northern District.
• November 4, 2026: 4 cases in the Western District, 3 in Buffalo and 1 in Rochester.

We covered the latest batches in our October 29 New York filings report, our October 30 report, our November 2 report and our November 4 Buffalo and Rochester report.

Which Strike 3 Holdings New York lawsuits were filed November 3–11, 2026?

Strike 3 Holdings filed 4 New York cases from November 3 to November 11, 2026, all in the Western District of New York on November 4. Three are Buffalo cases and one is a Rochester case. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford is assigned to all four. No new Strike 3 Holdings cases were filed in the Eastern, Southern or Northern Districts during those days.

City and provider come from Exhibit A and reflect the IP address, not a named person.

The Rochester case, 6:26-cv-07189, lists 154 works, far more than the 24 to 25 works in the three other November 4 cases. Verizon Fios is the provider in both Buffalo cases, and Spectrum is the provider in both Rochester cases.

Court documents

As of November 11, 2026, no early subpoena motion has been filed in any of the four cases. Each was automatically referred to mediation under the Western District’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan when the judge was assigned on November 5 or 6, 2026. Our Buffalo and Rochester filings report has more on these cases.

Which New York courthouse locations handled the new cases?

The number before the colon in a New York federal docket number shows the courthouse location. For example, an Eastern District case beginning “2:” is a Central Islip case, and a Southern District case beginning “7:” is a White Plains case.

Counts by filing date, as of November 11, 2026. Upstate counts are small, so percentage changes there move a lot with only a few cases.

Brooklyn remained the largest single courthouse location, with 126 cases. Central Islip grew from 44 to 57, Manhattan from 35 to 41, and White Plains from 18 to 23. In the six-month comparison, Buffalo fell from 9 to 5 and Rochester rose from 6 to 8. The November 4 wave then added 3 Buffalo cases and 1 Rochester case, bringing Buffalo to 8 and Rochester to 9 since May 3. See our Eastern District of New York page and the Strike 3 Holdings New York lawsuits hub for courthouse details.

How many New York cases had an amended complaint?

Amended complaints were filed in 8 Strike 3 Holdings New York cases between May 3 and November 2, 2026. In the prior six months, amended complaints were filed in at least 10 New York cases.

An amended complaint usually means Strike 3 Holdings has received the subscriber information from the internet provider and is replacing “John Doe” with a person it believes is responsible. In the Eastern District, Strike 3 Holdings often files the amended complaint under seal with a request to keep the name off the public docket, and files a redacted public copy. The documents linked below are the public, redacted versions, with the defendant’s name and address blacked out. Our guide to Strike 3 Holdings amended complaints and our New Jersey and New York amended complaint post explain this step.

As of November 11, 2026. Two amended complaints were filed under seal, so no public copy was available.

Two of these cases show how quickly things can move after an amended complaint. In 2:25-cv-06467 a notice of settlement was filed three days after the amended complaint. In 1:25-cv-10624 the case was discontinued as settled about six weeks later. Separately, an answer to an amended complaint was filed in S.D.N.Y. 7:25-cv-08120 on May 20, 2026, which means that case moved into ordinary litigation.

Can the defendant’s name become public in New York?

Yes – especially if there is a default judgment. One Eastern District case shows the risk of not responding. In E.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-05507, before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo, the court provisionally let the defendant stay anonymous in January 2026 but required a motion to keep that protection for the rest of the case. No motion was filed, and the defendant missed a March 2026 show-cause hearing on the issue. Strike 3 Holdings then filed its amended complaint with the defendant’s name redacted on the public docket, with the court’s permission, and served it by leaving it at the residence and mailing a copy. The defendant did not file an answer or any other response.

On July 22, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings asked the court whether to keep the John Doe caption and file its default papers under seal before it seeks a default and a default judgment (read the request). On September 21, 2026, the court gave the defendant one last chance, until October 9, 2026, to show good cause why the defendant’s name should not be used publicly.

On November 4, 2026, the court ordered that Strike 3 Holdings must publicly file its default papers with the defendant’s name redacted and file unredacted copies under seal. If the court grants the coming motion for default judgment, it will unseal the case documents, the defendant’s identity will become public, and the case caption will be amended to show the defendant’s name. The lesson is simple: anonymity protections are strongest when you respond on time. See whether your name can become public and should you ignore a Strike 3 Holdings subpoena?

For the full timeline and every public filing in this case, see our case note on what happens when a New York Doe ignores the case.

How are New York judges handling Strike 3 Holdings cases?

The usual first step is the same in all four districts. A judge grants an early request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to subpoena the internet provider, usually limited to the subscriber’s name and address. Each district then adds its own conditions.

Southern District: anonymity and limits on settlement contact

• Several Southern District orders say the defendant “may proceed anonymously as John Doe unless and until the Court orders otherwise” and that Strike 3 Holdings “shall not initiate settlement discussions prior to service of the Complaint without leave of Court.” Examples include Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke in 7:26-cv-08541 (October 7, 2026; read the order), 7:26-cv-05125 (July 6, 2026) and Judge Valerie E. Caproni in 1:26-cv-04116 (June 10, 2026).
• Orders commonly bar Strike 3 Holdings from asking the provider for an email address or phone number. Judge Lewis J. Liman’s September 11, 2026 order in 1:26-cv-07159 limited the subpoena to name and address and gave the subscriber 60 days to challenge it (read the order). Judge Dale E. Ho (1:26-cv-08539, October 6, 2026) and Judge Ronnie Abrams (1:26-cv-03257, August 6, 2026) issued similar orders.
• Some judges require Strike 3 Holdings to file status letters every 60 days and warn that missing them may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
• On September 8, 2026, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden found in 1:26-cv-02630 that Strike 3 Holdings had “failed to demonstrate good cause” for more time to serve under Rule 4(m), but extended the deadline to November 13, 2026 anyway and said no further extensions would be granted without good cause. On November 10, 2026, three days before that deadline, Strike 3 Holdings filed a notice of voluntary dismissal stating that it “voluntarily dismisses John Doe … from this action without prejudice,” which means Strike 3 Holdings could refile. The defendant was never named.
• Judge P. Kevin Castel granted the subpoena request in 1:26-cv-04120 on June 10, 2026 but refused to adjourn the September 11, 2026 initial conference. Judge Arun Subramanian found good cause and set a December 25, 2026 service deadline in 1:26-cv-04115.

Eastern District: direct magistrate assignment and sealed filings

• Many new Eastern District cases are assigned directly to a magistrate judge under the court’s direct assignment program (EDNY Administrative Order 2025-14), as in 1:26-cv-05159 and 1:26-cv-04368.
• Discovery orders commonly extend the service deadline to 30 days after the subscriber’s window to challenge the subpoena closes, as in 1:26-cv-05863 (October 1, 2026).
• Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke handles many Central Islip cases. We wrote about his orders in our post on Magistrate Judge Locke.
• In 2:26-cv-05099, a show-cause motion was filed on October 8, 2026, the court issued an order on October 13, and Strike 3 Holdings voluntarily dismissed the case on October 19, 2026.

Northern District: one judge pairing and no John Doe summons

• All 20 new Northern District cases were assigned to Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes, with Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz handling the subpoena requests.
• The clerk’s office issued notices that it will not issue a summons for a John Doe defendant until the person is identified, as in 6:26-cv-01415 (July 22, 2026) and 1:26-cv-01622 (August 24, 2026). Strike 3 Holdings then needed leave of court before filing its subpoena motion.
• In 1:26-cv-01060, a John Doe defendant filed an objection to the disclosure of subscriber information on July 10, 2026.

Western District: slow approvals, two motions to quash denied, and 4 new November cases

• Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford decides Strike 3 Holdings subpoena requests in batches. On May 21, 2026 she granted about a dozen, including cases filed in September 2025 such as 1:25-cv-00821 and 6:25-cv-06461. On October 14, 2026 she granted another dozen, including 6:26-cv-06222, 1:26-cv-00301 and 6:26-cv-06322, together with more time to serve. For Western District cases filed since May 3, 2026, the order came about four to five months after filing.
• All four November 4, 2026 cases (1:26-cv-02544, 1:26-cv-02545, 1:26-cv-02549 and 6:26-cv-07189) were assigned to Judge Wolford and automatically referred to mediation under the court’s ADR Plan. As of November 11, 2026, no subpoena request had been filed in any of them.
• On October 5, 2026, Judge Wolford denied motions to quash in 1:25-cv-01505 and 1:26-cv-00128. She found that privacy concerns and the risk of identifying the wrong person were not grounds to quash a subpoena under Rule 45, noted that the existing protective order addressed public anonymity, and extended service to December 4, 2026 (read the 1:26-cv-00128 decision).

Motions to quash or objections were also filed in S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-03279 (withdrawn June 24, 2026), E.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-03628 (September 17, 2026) and E.D.N.Y. 2:26-cv-03048 (October 6, 2026). A motion to quash that argues “it was not me” rarely succeeds at the subpoena stage, because the court is only deciding whether the provider can release a name and address.

How fast do New York judges approve the subpoena?

Timing varies widely by district. In Southern District cases filed since May 3, 2026, the order allowing the subpoena came a median of 21 days after filing. In the Western District, the orders came roughly 118 to 146 days after filing.

After the order, the provider sends its letter to the subscriber. The provider then releases a name and address unless the subpoena is challenged first. That deadline varies by letter and court, so act fast. That window is the best time to get advice.

How are New York Strike 3 Holdings cases ending?

Most New York Strike 3 Holdings cases end with a voluntary dismissal or a settlement notice. Examples from May 3 to November 11, 2026 include:

• With prejudice (the claim cannot be refiled): S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-05117 (Judge Edgardo Ramos, October 29, 2026) and S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-04113 (August 11, 2026).
• Settled or without prejudice: S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-06267 (October 5, 2026), 1:25-cv-10624 (September 28, 2026) and 7:26-cv-01245 (July 8, 2026); E.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-00906 (Judge Garaufis, July 16, 2026), 1:25-cv-06484 (September 29, 2026) and 1:25-cv-07172 (October 28, 2026).

A dismissal without prejudice ends the case without a ruling on the merits. The docket alone does not tell you why the case ended. In the prior six months, an order to show cause was entered in only one New York case, compared with at least two in the most recent period.

Which internet providers and cities appear most in the New York cases?

The table below covers the Exhibit A for 47 New York cases filed from October 28 to November 4, 2026. Exhibit A is the document attached to the complaint that lists the IP address, the approximate location, the internet provider, and the works Strike 3 Holdings says were shared.

Source: Exhibit A to each complaint. The city and provider reflect the IP address, not a named person.

Verizon Fios appeared in about three of every five cases. The most common Exhibit A locations were Queens (10 cases), Brooklyn (9) and New York (8), followed by Averill Park, Buffalo and Rochester (2 each). The number of works listed per case ranged from 24 to 154, with a median of 29. Our New York subpoena guide for Verizon and Spectrum explains what those provider letters look like.

What New York Strike 3 Holdings news came out from May to November 2026?

• November 4, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 4 Western District cases in Buffalo and Rochester, all assigned to Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford (our report).
• October 8, 2026: New York Courts Daily reported on a Northern District case filed September 22, 2026 (1:26-cv-01805) that alleges BitTorrent sharing of at least 26 films by a Verizon Fios subscriber.
• October 5, 2026: Judge Wolford’s Western District decisions denying two motions to quash were published (1:26-cv-00128 decision).
• September 11, 2026: Judge Liman’s Southern District order in 1:26-cv-07159 set out the five-factor test New York courts use for these subpoenas (read the order).
• June 15, 2026: nationally, 404 Media reported that a federal judge in California let Strike 3 Holdings’ case against Meta Platforms go forward. That case does not change the process for New York subscribers.

What does this mean if you received an ISP letter in New York?

A letter from your internet provider means a judge has allowed Strike 3 Holdings to ask for the name and address on your account. It does not mean you have been found responsible for anything, and it does not mean your name is public.

• Note the deadline. Your letter gives the date the provider plans to release your information. The deadline varies by letter and court, so act fast.
• Do not contact Strike 3 Holdings yourself. Anything you say can be used in the case.
• Check your case. The letter lists the court and docket number. Match the courthouse prefix to the table above to see where your case sits.
• Get advice early. Some New York cases move to amended complaints, sealed filings or show-cause orders. Early advice helps you choose the right path. Our ISP letter guide and 2026 subpoena guide walk through each step.

Most people we talk with want a quiet, anonymous resolution, and many achieve one. Court appearances are rarely necessary, and the firm defends in court when needed. See how an anonymous resolution works.

What you Can Learn

Our short videos explain some of the important things to know about the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit process, and your main options right now.

Many clients have told us our videos are very helpful. Click the image below to watch.

Clients we have represented in New York

Antonelli Law® has represented clients across New York in Strike 3 Holdings cases in all four federal districts.

Our New York clients have lived in Albany, Alden, Amherst, Amsterdam, Arverne, Astoria, Baldwin, Ballston Lake, Ballston Spa, Bayside, Bernhards Bay, Binghamton, Blue Point, Bohemia, Brentwood, Briarwood, Bronx, Bronxville, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Cambria Heights, Canandaigua, Castleton, Center Moriches, Chappaqua, Cheektowaga, Chittenango, Clarence Center, Clinton, College Point, Commack, Coram, Cornwall on Hudson, Corona, Cortland, Croton on Hudson, Cuddebackville, DeWitt, East Amherst, East Aurora, East Elmhurst, East Islip, East Northport, Eastchester, Elmhurst, Elmont, Endicott, Fairport, Far Rockaway, Farmingdale, Fishkill, Flushing, Forest Hills, Fort Salonga, Fresh Meadows, Glen Cove, Glen Head, Glenwood, Goshen, Great Neck, Hartsdale, Hauppauge, Hempstead, Hewlett, Hicksville, Highland, and Highland Mills.

We have also represented New York clients in Hilton, Hollis, Holtsville, Howard Beach, Huntington Station, Islip, Ithaca, Jamaica, Jamesville, Jeffersonville, Jericho, Johnson City, Kenmore, Kings Park, Kingston, Larchmont, Latham, Laurel, Laurelton, Levittown, Lindenhurst, Little Neck, Liverpool, Lockport, Long Island City, Lynbrook, Mahopac, Malta, Mamaroneck, Manhasset, Massapequa, Mastic Beach, McGraw, Medford, Merrick, Middle Village, Middletown, Minoa, Mount Marion, Mount Vernon, Nanuet, New City, New Hartford, New Hyde Park, New York, Newburgh, Niskayuna, North Babylon, North Chili, Northport, Oakland Gardens, Oceanside, Old Bethpage, Orchard Park, Ozone Park, Pawling, Peekskill, Plainview, Port Jefferson, Port Washington, Poughkeepsie, Pound Ridge, Queens, Queens Village, and Rego Park.

We have also represented New York clients in Rhinebeck, Ridgewood, Rochester, Rockville Centre, Ronkonkoma, Saranac Lake, Saratoga Springs, Scarsdale, Schenectady, Scotia, Sea Cliff, Selden, Sinclairville, Smithtown, South Farmingdale, South Floral Park, South Jamesport, South Ozone Park, Southampton, Staten Island, Suffern, Sunnyside, Syosset, Syracuse, Tonawanda, Troy, Tuxedo, Utica, Valhalla, Valley Stream, Waterville, Webster, West Babylon, West Bloomfield, West Islip, West Monroe, West Nyack, West Seneca, Westbury, Wheatley Heights, White Plains, Whitestone, Woodside, Yonkers, and Yorktown Heights.

Attorney Highlight: Jeffrey Antonelli

Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results

Here is just one client review of Jeffrey Antonelli. Click the link below for many others.

Frequently asked questions about Strike 3 Holdings New York lawsuits

Related reading

• Strike 3 Holdings New York lawsuits hub
• Strike 3 Holdings Buffalo and Rochester: 4 new cases filed November 4, 2026
• Strike 3 Holdings New York: 12 new cases filed November 2, 2026
• Strike 3 Holdings New York: 9 new cases (October 30 filings)
• Strike 3 Holdings New York: 10 more new cases (October 29 filings)
• Strike 3 Holdings New York: 10 new cases
• Strike 3 Holdings in the Eastern District of New York
• Strike 3 Holdings amended complaints in New Jersey and New York
• Strike 3 Holdings New York subpoenas to Verizon and Spectrum
• Eastern District of New York cases before Magistrate Judge Locke
• What a Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint means
• Strike 3 Holdings ISP letter guide
• Strike 3 Holdings subpoena guide for 2026
• Should I ignore a Strike 3 Holdings subpoena?
• How an anonymous resolution works
• Will my name become public?
• Strike 3 Holdings FAQ

Court websites: Eastern District of New York, Southern District of New York, Northern District of New York and Western District of New York.

Counts and rulings are current as of November 11, 2026. Docket descriptions vary by court, so some entries may be described differently than shown here. Updated November 11, 2026.

This page is general information about Strike 3 Holdings and similar BitTorrent copyright cases. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; results depend on the specific factual and legal circumstances of that case. Client reviews describe individual experiences. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Antonelli Law® defends people and businesses against copyright claims and does not represent copyright holders. Attorney advertising. Information is current as of November 11, 2026.

TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd. dba Antonelli Law®.