Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:24-cv-04139
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern found good cause and allowed an early subpoena seeking Doe’s identity from Optimum Online.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena Optimum Online and potentially other identified internet service providers for Doe’s name and address, subject to the order’s conditions; John Doe may receive notice if the provider is covered by the cited cable-privacy law.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to contact Optimum Online before the usual early case-planning conference. The company sought Doe’s name and address.

The court found good cause and granted permission to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena requiring it to provide the name and address of the subscriber assigned that internet address. The order also permits subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response to the first subpoena.

The subpoenaed provider must notify Doe if it is covered by a federal cable-privacy law requiring notice. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-04139
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
June 21, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena was directed to Optimum Online, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet address listed in the complaint.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It ordered that Strike 3 may serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, attaching a copy of the order. The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to a defendant.

If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal law, it must comply with the law’s notice requirement by sending Doe a copy of the order. Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.

Effect of the order

This order authorizes an early discovery step to identify the defendant. It does not decide whether Strike 3 will prevail on the claims in its complaint. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed and entered the order on June 21, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.