Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-09940
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Woods granted early discovery so Strike 3 could identify the subscriber linked to an IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may serve the subpoena; Optimum Online must follow the order’s identification and notice procedures; and the subscriber identified by the listed IP address may object to the subpoena within the specified time.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet protocol address. Before the parties’ required conference, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on CSC Holdings LLC, also called Optimum Online, seeking the subscriber’s name and address.
The court found that Strike 3 met the required standard of reasonableness and good cause, even though the request was made early and without advance notice to the other side. The court did not decide the merits of any future request to challenge the subpoena.
Judge Woods granted Strike 3’s motion to serve the subpoena. Optimum Online and the identified subscriber received time limits to object, and any disclosed information could be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-09940
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 16, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to obtain early discovery from CSC Holdings LLC, also known as Optimum Online. The requested discovery was a third-party subpoena seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 67.81.180.243. The request came before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and was made without advance notice to the opposing side.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless the court authorizes it. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with especially careful review because Strike 3 sought both early discovery and a one-sided order.
The court found that Strike 3 satisfied that standard. It noted that Strike 3’s argument relied on a test used in cases involving motions to challenge subpoenas and preserve anonymity, but emphasized that issue was not before the court. The order therefore was not a decision on the merits of any future motion to challenge the subpoena.
Order
The court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. Strike 3’s counsel must attach the order to the subpoena.
Optimum Online must reasonably attempt to identify the subscriber within seven days after receiving the subpoena and provide the subscriber with copies of the subpoena and order. If it cannot identify the subscriber to a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3’s counsel.
Optimum Online may move to challenge or otherwise object to the subpoena within 21 days after service. The identified subscriber may do so within 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Optimum Online. If there is no challenge or other objection, Optimum Online must produce the requested information within 21 days after notifying the subscriber.
Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. The information may not be disclosed to anyone other than Strike 3 and its counsel without further court permission. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 9.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.