Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-02370
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Román allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and potentially other internet service providers; the order also imposes notice and use limits on that process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims beyond referring to rights stated in the complaint.
The court found good cause for Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. The company may also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
Judge Nelson S. Román granted the request and directed Strike 3 Holdings to follow notice requirements if the provider is a cable operator. The information may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-02370
- Nelson Roman
- June 5, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 96.246.137.196. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims beyond referring to rights set forth in Strike 3 Holdings’ complaint.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider, with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any other 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), the court directed it to comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 10.
What the order did not decide
This order addressed early discovery and identification of the defendant. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.