Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-08174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from Internet service providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Spectrum and, if applicable, other identified Internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the information may be used only for the purposes stated in the order.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The subpoena seeks the name and address of the person assigned the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to serve the subpoena. It authorized a subpoena to Spectrum and to another Internet provider identified through a subpoena response, if applicable.
Judge Halpern limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in the complaint. If Spectrum is legally considered a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing the identifying information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-08174
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 14, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the early meeting in which parties generally discuss the case and plan discovery. The proposed subpoena is directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the Internet service provider, and seeks the true name and address of the defendant associated with the Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint: 67.254.207.161.
Court’s analysis and order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause”—a legally sufficient reason—for serving the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning early subpoenas to identify an unknown defendant.
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena must include a copy of the order. The court also authorized 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), which allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. In that situation, Spectrum must send a copy of the order to the defendant.
Disposition
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve the authorized Rule 45 subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. It limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Spectrum to protecting and enforcing the rights stated in the complaint. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against the defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.