Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 3, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:25-cv-01294
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 an early subpoena to identify the defendant behind a specified internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe defendant from Optimum Online and certain other identified internet service providers; the defendant must receive notice if the provider is a cable operator.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns the plaintiff’s request to identify the person associated with internet address 67.81.117.215.

The court found good cause for Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties’ required initial conference. The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address, and similar subpoenas may be served on other identified internet providers.

Judge Philip M. Halpern also required notice to the defendant if the provider is a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the plaintiff’s rights in the complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-01294
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Mar. 3, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena was directed to Optimum Online, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and concerned the subscriber assigned internet address 67.81.117.215.

Court’s Reasoning and Order

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to obtain information before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized service of a Rule 45 subpoena on Optimum Online seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena.

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 Optimum Online 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 a copy of the order to the defendant before disclosing personal identifying information. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint.

Disposition and Scope

The order allows early third-party discovery to identify the defendant. It does not decide the underlying claims described in the complaint.

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.