Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Victor Marrero
- 1:24-cv-08968
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Marrero found good cause and authorized subpoenas to identify the John Doe defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other service provider identified in response to an authorized subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber associated with a specified Internet address. It asked for permission to seek identifying information from Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management conference.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause. It authorized a subpoena requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address and allowed similar subpoenas to other identified Internet service providers.
Judge Marrero also required notice to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-08968
- Victor Marrero
- Jan. 2, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the Internet service provider associated with the Internet address listed in the complaint for John Doe.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to seek the information before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Verizon Fios to provide the true name and address of the defendant assigned the specified Internet address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.
The order also permits 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 Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order, thereby notifying the subscriber of the court-authorized disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
What the order did not decide
The order authorized early discovery to identify the defendant. It did not decide the underlying claims or whether either party ultimately would prevail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.