Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 17, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:24-cv-09989
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman authorized early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers; the order also requires notice to John Doe if the cable-operator provision applies.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, whose internet service had been assigned a specified internet-protocol address. The plaintiff asked to subpoena the internet service provider before the parties held their required initial conference.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and allowed it to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in a response as connected to the defendant.

Judge Nelson Roman’s order required notice to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the plaintiff’s rights in this case. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

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-09989
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Jan. 17, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought this action against “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.68.192.188.” It moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).

Court’s Analysis and Order

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider identified in the order. Citing decisions including Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, Sony Music Entertainment v. Does 1-40, Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-30, the court authorized the discovery.

Strike 3 Holdings may serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff must attach the order to the subpoena. The plaintiff may also serve the same type of subpoena on another service provider identified in a response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

If Verizon Fios 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. That provision allows a cable operator to disclose personal identifying information under a court order authorizing disclosure when the subscriber is notified.

Disposition

Judge Nelson Roman authorized the requested early third-party subpoenas and limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained from a subpoena served on Verizon Fios to protecting and enforcing the plaintiff’s rights described in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.

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.