Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-05661
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Woods granted early discovery allowing a subpoena to identify the subscriber linked to the listed IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the subscriber’s identifying information from Optimum Online. Optimum Online must follow the order’s notification and production procedures, and the subscriber may object to or seek to cancel the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by the IP address 24.38.233.77. Before the parties held their required initial conference, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Optimum Online for the subscriber’s name and address.
The court applied a standard requiring reasonableness and good cause, with especially careful review because Strike 3 sought discovery early and without notifying the other side. The court found that Strike 3 met that standard. It emphasized that the order did not decide the merits of any possible later challenge to the subpoena.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the subpoena. Optimum Online must try to identify and notify the subscriber, and both Optimum Online and the subscriber may object or ask the court to cancel the subpoena within specified periods. The court also limited use and disclosure of the information and terminated the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-05661
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 13, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to seek discovery before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Specifically, it sought to serve a subpoena under Rule 45 on Optimum Online to obtain the name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 24.38.233.77. The order refers to John Doe as the defendant and does not identify the subscriber by name.
Court’s analysis
Rule 26(d) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless a court authorizes early discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with particularly careful review because Strike 3 sought expedited discovery without giving notice through a regular motion. The court found that Strike 3 satisfied that standard. It noted that Strike 3 relied on a test concerning motions to cancel subpoenas brought to protect anonymity, but stated that issue was not before the court and that the order was not a decision on the merits of any future motion to cancel the subpoena.
Order and practical effect
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. Optimum Online must reasonably attempt to identify the subscriber and provide the subscriber with the subpoena and order within seven days after service. If it cannot identify the subscriber with a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3’s counsel.
Optimum Online may move to cancel or otherwise object to the subpoena within 21 days after service. The identified subscriber may do so within 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Optimum Online. If there is no objection, Optimum Online must produce the requested information within 21 days after notifying the subscriber. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint, and the information may not be disclosed to anyone other than Strike 3 and its counsel without further court permission. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Nos. 8 and 10. Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order on August 13, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.