Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-09959
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed an early subpoena to identify the defendant through an internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe defendant from Optimum Online and other identified internet-service providers, subject to the order’s notice and use limits.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe by an internet address. It asked to contact the internet provider before the parties held their first required case-management meeting.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to seek the defendant’s true name and address. The order identifies Optimum Online as the provider and allows subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through the process.
Judge Karas ordered that any cable operator notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-09959
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 16, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued “John Doe,” identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 24.228.47.221. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A third-party subpoena is a formal demand for information from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit; a Rule 26(f) conference is the parties’ initial meeting to discuss the case and discovery.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider. The order authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve Optimum Online with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The subpoena must include a copy of the order.
The order also authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
Subscriber notice and use of information
If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must comply with the statute’s notice requirement by sending a copy of the order to the defendant before disclosing personal identifying information. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on the internet service provider only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Effect of the order
The order permits pre-conference discovery aimed at identifying the anonymous defendant and any subsequently identified internet-service provider. It does not state a ruling on the underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.