Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 28, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:24-cv-04137
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Román allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios before a Rule 26(f) conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the John Doe defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios, and potentially from another identified Internet service provider. The defendant may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the required Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint as a subscriber assigned a specified Internet Protocol address.

The court found good cause for early discovery and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another Internet service provider identified in Verizon Fios’s response. Any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.

Judge Nelson S. Román issued the order on June 28, 2024, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.

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-04137
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
June 28, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 173.62.126.145. Strike 3 requested permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference, which is the conference where parties generally discuss the case and discovery.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to seek the information before that conference. The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios 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 must attach a copy of the order.

The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other Internet service provider identified in Verizon Fios’s response as having provided Internet services to one of the defendants.

If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing personal identifying information under the subpoena. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

The order authorizes the early subpoena and directs the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 8.

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.