Strike 3 Holdings,LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-03215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios before the required conference to identify John Doe.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet-service providers for John Doe’s true name and address. John Doe, the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 96.248.39.216, may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena seeks John Doe’s true name and address associated with the listed internet address.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for the early subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through the responses, if applicable.
Judge Roman ordered that any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings,LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-03215
- Nelson Roman
- June 3, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena would be directed to Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address 96.248.39.216.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court therefore permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45, provided that a copy of the order is attached.
The court also permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the authorized disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.