Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 27, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:24-cv-00654
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed subpoenas seeking the anonymous defendant’s identity before the usual discovery conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the anonymous defendant through subpoenas to Spectrum and potentially other identified internet-service providers. John Doe may receive notice if Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the plaintiff asked to serve Spectrum, an internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties held the required discovery conference.

The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause to obtain the defendant’s true name and address from the internet provider. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified in response to the first subpoena.

Judge Karas granted the requested early discovery subject to conditions. The plaintiff must attach the order to each subpoena, and if Spectrum is a cable operator, the defendant must receive a copy of the order. The plaintiff may use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.

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-00654
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Aug. 27, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 98.15.250.228. The order refers to Spectrum as the internet service provider.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning this type of early discovery.

Ruling

The court granted permission to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring it to provide Strike 3 Holdings with the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena. The court also permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Finally, information obtained through a Rule 45 subpoena served on Spectrum may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in the complaint. Judge Kenneth Karas entered the order on August 27, 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.