Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 15, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:24-cv-09960
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern authorized a subpoena seeking the identity and address of the person linked to a specified internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required initial meeting about the case. The subpoena seeks the true name and address of the person assigned the specified internet address.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to obtain that information. It authorized the company to subpoena Spectrum and, if identified, other internet service providers connected to the defendant.

Judge Halpern also required certain notice and use restrictions. If Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order, and Strike 3 Holdings may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted 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-09960
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Jan. 15, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena is directed to Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider, and seeks the true name and address of the defendant to whom Spectrum assigned the internet address listed in the complaint: 24.164.135.6.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that the company attaches a copy of the order.

The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet 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) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. The order limits Strike 3 Holdings’s use of information disclosed in response to the subpoena to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in its complaint.

Effect of the order

The order addresses early discovery—the process of obtaining information before the case reaches later stages. It does not decide the underlying claims or state whether Strike 3 Holdings will ultimately prevail.

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.