Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma Lawsuits Hub: Cases, Judges & Help
This Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma lawsuits hub tracks every Strike 3 Holdings case filed in Oklahoma federal court. On November 2, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings filed its first-ever two Oklahoma cases in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City. Each case names one internet subscriber identified only by an IP address.
Judge Jones has already entered one order in his case. On November 3, 2026, the day after filing, he ordered Strike 3 Holdings to file the corporate disclosure statement it left out, by November 9, 2026. Nothing similar has been entered in Judge DeGiusti’s case so far. We are watching the dockets for the subpoena motion, the order, and any change in how these judges handle it.
Here you will find each case, the assigned judges, every docket entry so far, what the judges here have done with early subpoena requests in the past, and what to do if AT&T Internet or Cox Communications sends you a letter. If you get one, call or tap (312) 201-8310 for a free, confidential consultation.
Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma lawsuits: every case so far
These are the first Strike 3 Holdings cases filed in any of Oklahoma’s three federal courts. We searched court records for the Western District (Oklahoma City), the Northern District (Tulsa) and the Eastern District (Muskogee), and these two cases filed on November 2, 2026 are the only ones. The “5:” at the start of each case number is the courthouse location in Oklahoma City.
| Case no. | Filed | Court | Judge | Status (11/03/2026) | ISP / city | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5:26-cv-03160 | 11/02/2026 | W.D. Okla. (Oklahoma City) | Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti | Open. No subpoena motion yet. | AT&T Internet Edmond, OK |
Exhibit A Complaint |
| 5:26-cv-03162 | 11/02/2026 | W.D. Okla. (Oklahoma City) | Judge Bernard M. Jones, II | Open. No subpoena motion yet. Disclosure statement due 11/09/2026. | Cox Communications Yukon, OK |
Exhibit A Complaint |
Source: court records for each case, including the complaint and Exhibit A, as of November 3, 2026. The city and provider come from Exhibit A and reflect the IP address, not a named person.
What the Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma Exhibit A documents show
Exhibit A is the document attached to each complaint that lists the IP address, the approximate location, the internet provider, and the works Strike 3 Holdings says were shared.
| Case no. | IP address | City | ISP | Works listed | Activity dates listed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5:26-cv-03160 | 68.249.236.94 | Edmond, OK | AT&T Internet | 163 | 01/29/2024 to 09/01/2026 |
| 5:26-cv-03162 | 68.12.53.15 | Yukon, OK | Cox Communications | 77 | 11/25/2025 to 09/15/2026 |
- 240 works in total. The Edmond case lists 163 works over more than two and a half years. The Yukon case lists 77 works over about ten months.
- Two providers. One case involves AT&T Internet and one involves Cox Communications.
- Recent activity. The latest activity listed is September 15, 2026, about seven weeks before filing.
These details matter because the account holder named in a later subpoena response is not always the person who used the connection. A shared home network, a roommate, a guest, or an open router can all sit behind one IP address.
What to expect from the ISP subpoena motion in Oklahoma
Strike 3 Holdings does not know who you are when it files. Its next step is a motion asking the judge for permission to subpoena the internet provider before the usual discovery conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d). If the judge grants it, the provider must look up the account holder and send a letter before it releases a name and address. As of November 3, 2026, neither Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma case has that motion on file.
Who decides it
In the Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases, Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has 5:26-cv-03160 and Judge Bernard M. Jones, II has 5:26-cv-03162. Neither case has been referred to a magistrate judge, so for now the district judge will rule on the subpoena request. The court lists its judges on its judges page.
How Western District of Oklahoma judges have handled these requests before
Before the Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases, we found no earlier BitTorrent John Doe cases by Strike 3 Holdings or any similar plaintiff in Oklahoma federal court, so neither judge has ruled on this exact request. The closest history is a pair of music-industry file-sharing cases against students, where record labels asked to subpoena a university for the identity of Does known only by IP address. Both requests were granted within days.
| Case | Judge | Motion filed | Order | What the order allowed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-11, No. 5:07-cv-00568 | Judge David L. Russell | 05/17/2007 | 05/18/2007 (next day) Read the order |
A subpoena to Oklahoma State University for each Doe’s name, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and MAC address. Use limited to protecting rights under the Copyright Act. |
| Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Does 1-13, No. 5:08-cv-00723 | Judge Joe Heaton | 07/16/2008 | 07/22/2008 (six days later) Read the order |
A subpoena to the University of Oklahoma for the same identifying details. Use limited to protecting rights under the Copyright Act. |
In the 2007 case the Does later asked Judge Russell to vacate the order and quash the subpoena. On November 14, 2007 he denied that request. He found the student privacy law allowed release of directory information, that the First Amendment did not block it, and that the investigator’s declaration showed good cause. Those cases are old and were decided by other judges, but they show the court has granted this kind of early subpoena quickly. Each judge writes their own order, so the terms in the new cases may differ.
What the order is likely to say
Elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, judges commonly grant these motions with limits. In one District of Colorado BitTorrent order, for example, the court limited the subpoena to the subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, email address and MAC address, required the provider to notify the subscriber, and allowed the information to be used only for the claims in the complaint. Watch for these terms when an Oklahoma order arrives:
- What the provider can release. Name and address only, or more.
- The notice period. How long you have after the provider’s letter before your information goes out.
- Privacy protections. Whether the court lets the John Doe proceed anonymously or requires filings under seal.
- Limits on use. Whether the information may be used only for this case.
Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma docket status
Every entry on both dockets as of November 3, 2026, including text-only entries:
| Date | Case no. | Docket entry | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/02/2026 | 5:26-cv-03160 | Complaint with Exhibit A | The case opens. Strike 3 Holdings names one John Doe by IP address (AT&T Internet, Edmond). |
| 11/02/2026 | 5:26-cv-03162 | Complaint with Exhibit A | The case opens. Strike 3 Holdings names one John Doe by IP address (Cox Communications, Yukon). |
| 11/03/2026 | 5:26-cv-03160 | Filing fee receipt (text-only entry) | Routine. The filing fee was paid. |
| 11/03/2026 | 5:26-cv-03160 | Copyright report to the Copyright Office (form AO 121) | Routine notice the clerk sends in every copyright case. |
| 11/03/2026 | 5:26-cv-03162 | Order from Judge Jones on the corporate disclosure rule (LCvR 7.1.1) | Strike 3 Holdings, an LLC, did not file the required disclosure statement with its first filing. It must cure that by November 9, 2026. |
| 11/03/2026 | 5:26-cv-03162 | Filing fee receipt (text-only entry) | Routine. The filing fee was paid. |
| 11/03/2026 | 5:26-cv-03162 | Copyright report to the Copyright Office (form AO 121) | Routine notice the clerk sends in every copyright case. |
We will add new entries here as they appear, including the subpoena motions and orders.
Got an AT&T Internet or Cox Communications letter?
The provider letter is usually the first notice a John Doe gets. In the Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases so far, AT&T Internet is the provider in 5:26-cv-03160 (Edmond) and Cox Communications is the provider in 5:26-cv-03162 (Yukon). No letters can go out until the judge signs an order, so if you get one, check the date and the case number in it.
- AT&T Internet. See our AT&T Internet letter guide for what the letter looks like and what it asks.
- Cox Communications. See our Cox letter guide for the same.
- Keep the letter and the order. They name the court, the case number, the IP address and your deadline.
- Do not contact Strike 3 Holdings before you understand your options.
What this means if you are the John Doe
- No letter has gone out yet in these cases. A provider letter normally follows a court order, and none of these Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases has one so far.
- The letter will name the case. When it arrives, it should list the court, the docket number, and the IP address. Compare them with the table above.
- The letter sets your timeline. The date in your provider’s letter is the date to plan around.
- Your name is not in the public case. At this stage each case lists only an IP address.
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.
What usually happens next in Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases
- Strike 3 Holdings files a John Doe complaint identified only by an IP address. That step is done in all 2 cases.
- It asks the court for permission to subpoena the internet provider before the usual discovery conference. As of November 3, 2026, we have not seen that request filed in any of these cases.
- If the court agrees, the provider notifies the account holder. That is the letter most people receive.
- After the notice period in the court order, the provider may release the account holder’s name and address unless something is filed.
Use the dates in your own letter. Timelines in Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases depend on the judge and on the terms of each order. See our provider pages for Verizon, AT&T Internet, Spectrum, Cox, Optimum, and Frontier.
Clients we have represented in Oklahoma
Antonelli Law® has represented six clients who live in Oklahoma in federal copyright matters. We handle Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma matters by phone, email, and secure upload through our contact page, so you do not need to travel to Oklahoma City to talk with us.
Our Oklahoma clients have lived in Broken Arrow, Muskogee, Nichols Hills, Purcell, and Tulsa.
Attorney Highlight: Paul Sanders
Paul Sanders, an Associate at Antonelli Law®, defends people in BitTorrent copyright cases and in satellite and cable piracy matters. His work includes depositions, arbitrations, and cases in both state and federal court. He also mediated more than two dozen cases through the Circuit Court of Cook County Mediation Program.
Paul graduated with honors from the John Marshall Law School, earning both his law degree and a certificate in intellectual property. While there, he was Lead Articles Editor of the school’s intellectual property law review and taught oral argument to first- and second-year students. He is licensed in Illinois and admitted to the General Bar of the Northern District of Illinois. He handles the BitTorrent consultation from start to finish: he reads the ISP letter with you, then either pursues a quiet settlement or helps defend the case in court, whichever fits.
Phone: (312) 201-8310. Email: paul@antonelli-law.com.
Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results
Here is just one client review of Paul Sanders. Click the link below for many others.
Posted by anonymous | October 14, 2025 | Hired Attorney
Great Attorney
“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.”
Got an ISP letter about a Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma case?
Most people we talk with want a quiet, anonymous resolution. We also defend cases in court when that is the better path. The first step is simply a free, confidential consultation about your letter and the documents in your case.
Call or tap: (312) 201-8310
Or email or upload your documents through our contact page, or choose an attorney and book a time below.
Schedule Your Free Confidential Strike 3 Holdings Consultation
Speak directly with our team. Choose the attorney you prefer. A consultation is not a decision to go to court.
Paul Sanders
Melissa Ross
Jeffrey Antonelli
Alec Dardis
Frequently asked questions
Do I need an Oklahoma lawyer for a Strike 3 Holdings case?
No. Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases are federal copyright cases. Antonelli Law® handles Strike 3 Holdings matters in federal courts nationwide, and you can work with us by phone, email, and secure upload from Edmond, Yukon, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or anywhere else in the state.
Has Strike 3 Holdings filed cases in Tulsa or Muskogee?
Not so far. As of November 3, 2026, both Strike 3 Holdings Oklahoma cases are in the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City. We found no Strike 3 Holdings cases in the Northern District (Tulsa) or the Eastern District (Muskogee). We will add any new filing to this hub.
How do I know which case is mine?
Your provider’s letter or the enclosed court order lists the court, the docket number, and the IP address. Match those against the tables above, or send the letter to us and we will confirm it with you.
Has the judge approved the subpoena to my provider yet?
Not as of November 3, 2026. Neither case has a motion asking to subpoena the internet provider yet. We check both dockets every other day and will post the order here when it comes.
Will my name be public?
At the subpoena stage the case lists only an IP address. Many people resolve these matters confidentially through counsel, often without their name appearing in the public record.
What if I did not download anything?
The person who pays for the internet account is not always the person who used it. That difference can matter a great deal, and it is worth discussing in a free, confidential consultation before you respond to anyone.
Related reading
- Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits hub
- Strike 3 Holdings New York lawsuits
- Strike 3 Holdings Illinois lawsuits
- Strike 3 Holdings ISP letter guide
- Strike 3 Holdings FAQ
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. 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 3, 2026.
TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd. dba Antonelli Law®.
The 3 Things To Know When You’re Being Sued By Strike 3 Holdings
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does
Cell Film Holdings LLC Says Aloha to Hawaiian Telecom Downloaders!
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.