Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-08170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Woods granted Strike 3’s request for early discovery to identify an internet subscriber.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain early third-party discovery. Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. must follow the subpoena procedures, and the subscriber associated with IP address 207.38.151.83 receives notice and an opportunity to object.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required discovery-planning conference. The subpoena seeks the name and address of the subscriber assigned IP address 207.38.151.83.
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the court found that Strike 3 met the required standard of reasonableness and good cause, despite seeking discovery without advance notice to the opposing party. The court authorized a subpoena to Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered procedures for notifying the subscriber and allowing Astound and the subscriber to object or ask that the subpoena be canceled. The court stated that it was not deciding the merits of any future objection to the subpoena and granted Strike 3’s motion for early discovery.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-08170
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 13, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties conducted the discovery-planning conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena would be served on Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. to obtain the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address 207.38.151.83.
Standard and Analysis
Rule 26(d) generally bars a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the court authorizes early discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with especially careful review because Strike 3 sought both expedited discovery and an order without advance notice to the opposing party.
The court noted that Strike 3 relied on a test from an earlier case concerning motions to cancel subpoenas intended to preserve a person's anonymity. The court emphasized that the issue of whether a future motion to cancel or challenge the subpoena would succeed was not before it, and that the order did not decide that issue.
Ruling and Conditions
The court found that Strike 3 satisfied the reasonableness-and-good-cause standard and granted its motion for permission to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference.
The order permits Strike 3 to serve Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. with a subpoena under Rule 45. Strike 3's counsel must attach the order to the subpoena. Within seven days after service, Astound must reasonably attempt to identify the subscriber and provide the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and the order. If Astound cannot identify the subscriber with a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3's counsel.
Astound has 21 days after service to move to cancel or otherwise object to the subpoena. The identified subscriber has 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Astound to do the same. If there is no motion or objection, Astound must provide the requested information to Strike 3 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.