Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-09949
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Failla authorized an early subpoena to identify the defendant through the Internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the true name and address of John Doe from Optimum Online or another identified Internet service provider. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the provider must follow the order’s disclosure conditions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties held their required initial conference. The subpoena would seek the true name and address of the person assigned the IP address listed in the complaint.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for the early subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other Internet service providers identified in responses to the subpoenas.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint and required subscriber notification if the provider qualified as a cable operator. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-09949
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 16, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena would be served on Optimum Online, identified as the Internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the defendant assigned the IP address listed in the complaint: 67.80.11.127.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Rule 45 and required Strike 3 to attach a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing Internet services to one of the defendants. If Optimum Online qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court required it to comply with the subscriber-notification provision in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 8. Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.