Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:24-cv-05660
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge McMahon authorized a subpoena seeking Doe’s name and address while keeping Doe’s identity private.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from CSC Holdings LLC, while John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to object and remains publicly anonymous. CSC Holdings LLC must follow the subpoena and the order’s sealed-submission procedures.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, the plaintiff asked to subpoena the internet provider, CSC Holdings LLC, before the parties’ required initial meeting. The court found good cause for obtaining information about the person assigned the listed internet address.
The court authorized the plaintiff to serve a subpoena seeking Doe’s true name and address, but not a telephone number or email address. The provider must try to identify Doe, notify Doe, and provide Doe with the subpoena and order. Both the provider and Doe have 21 days to object or ask the court to cancel the subpoena.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered that any identifying information be submitted to the court under seal and disclosed to the plaintiff’s lawyer only for this lawsuit. The court also ordered that Doe remain publicly anonymous unless it later orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-05660
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 21, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on CSC Holdings LLC, identified as the internet service provider, before the parties held the conference normally required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena concerns the person sued as John Doe, who was assigned IP address 47.23.131.170. The opinion states that the plaintiff alleged Doe unlawfully downloaded adult movies.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that the plaintiff had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized the plaintiff to serve CSC Holdings LLC with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking Doe’s true name and address. The subpoena may not seek Doe’s telephone number or email address, and the plaintiff must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
Within seven days after receiving each subpoena, the internet provider must reasonably attempt to identify Doe and give Doe copies of the subpoena and order. If the provider cannot identify the user of the IP address with reasonable technical certainty, it must notify the plaintiff’s lawyer in writing.
The provider and the potential defendant each have 21 days to move to cancel the subpoena or otherwise object. If no such motion is filed, the provider must submit the requested information to the court—not directly to the plaintiff—within 21 days after notifying Doe. The submission must be made separately from the other parties and under seal. The court will disclose the information to the plaintiff’s lawyer, without disclosing any email address or telephone number. The plaintiff may use the disclosed information only to litigate this case.
Anonymity and Effect
Because of the sensitive nature of the allegations, and because the plaintiff did not oppose anonymity, the court found good cause for Doe to proceed anonymously. Doe’s true name and other identifying information may not be publicly disclosed as Doe’s identity in this action unless the court later orders otherwise. The plaintiff and the internet provider are also prohibited from publicly disclosing Doe’s personal identifying information without a further court order. This order addresses early information gathering and privacy protections; it does not decide whether Doe is liable for the alleged conduct.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.