Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 22, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:24-cv-07295
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an assigned internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified in response to the authorized subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an assigned internet address. It asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management conference.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for the early subpoena. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response to the first subpoena.

Judge Nelson Roman allowed the subpoenas and required Strike 3 Holdings to attach the order. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its 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-07295
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Oct. 22, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena would be served on Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of John Doe, the subscriber assigned the IP address listed in the complaint.

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 early subpoenas to identify an unnamed defendant.

Order

The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

If Verizon Fios 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 a copy of the order to the defendant as notice of the disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 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.