Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:24-cv-07289
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Stanton allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the anonymous defendant identified as John Doe, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held the required early case-planning conference. The defendant is identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet address 72.229.54.54.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and allowed it to serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
Judge Louis Stanton’s order requires a cable operator to send the defendant a copy of the order if disclosure is made under the federal cable-privacy law. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-07289
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 21, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is listed as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 72.229.54.54. Strike 3 Holdings sought information from Spectrum, which the order calls the internet service provider.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings established “good cause” for early discovery. The order allows Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena.
The order also allows Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena 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). Under that provision, disclosure of personal identifying information may be made pursuant to a court order authorizing disclosure if the subscriber is notified. The order requires a copy of the order to be sent to the defendant for that purpose.
Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint.
Disposition
Judge Louis Stanton allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the described third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference, subject to the notice and use restrictions in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.