Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-01292
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed early subpoenas to identify the unknown defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe defendant, Optimum Online, and any other internet-service provider identified in a subpoena response.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required early case-management meeting. The defendant was identified in the case as John Doe, a subscriber assigned a specified internet address.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to seek information from Optimum Online, the internet provider. The order allows subpoenas seeking the defendant’s true name and address and permits similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified in the responses.
The order also requires certain notices and limits use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. Judge Nelson S. Roman authorized the subpoenas and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-01292
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 19, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant is identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 68.197.21.182.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider. The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Optimum Online to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany 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 compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). That provision allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified of the order by the person receiving it. The order therefore requires a copy to be sent to the defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Nelson S. Roman ordered the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.