Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 20, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:25-cv-01290
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 an early subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant from an Internet provider.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other Internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held their required early case-planning conference. The subpoena seeks the name and address of the person associated with the Internet address identified in the complaint.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and authorized it to serve the subpoena. The order also allows subpoenas to other Internet service providers identified in response. If Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order before disclosing personal identifying information.

Judge Roman limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in the complaint. 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. 7:25-cv-01290
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Mar. 20, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the required conference at which the parties ordinarily discuss and plan the case. The subpoena is directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the Internet service provider, and seeks the true name and address of the defendant associated with the Internet address listed in the complaint.

Court’s Analysis and Order

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings established “good cause” for early discovery. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, attaching a copy of the order. The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on any other Internet service provider identified in response as providing Internet services to one of the defendants.

If Spectrum 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). Under that provision as quoted in the order, a cable operator may disclose personal identifying information under a court order if the subscriber is notified of the order by the person receiving it. The order therefore requires a copy of the order to be sent to the defendant.

Disposition

The court authorized the early subpoenas and limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through a subpoena served on the Internet service provider to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the 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.