Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-01267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge P. Castel authorized subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from Spectrum and other providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena Spectrum and certain later-identified internet service providers for information identifying John Doe. John Doe may receive notice if Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information may be used only for the purposes stated in the complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held their required early case meeting. The defendant was identified in the case by the internet address 98.14.132.98.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to obtain the defendant’s name and address. It authorized a subpoena to Spectrum and allowed similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response. The subpoena must include the court’s order.
Judge P. Castel also required certain notice to the defendant if Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator and limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01267
- P. Castel
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC 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 98.14.132.98. The proposed subpoena was directed to Spectrum, which the order calls the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve Spectrum with a subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cited decisions recognizing this standard for subpoenas seeking information identifying an unknown defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. The court also authorized a Rule 45 subpoena, served in the same manner, to any other internet service provider identified in Spectrum’s response as having provided internet services to one of the defendants.
If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. That provision allows disclosure of identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. Strike 3 Holdings may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Judge P. Castel’s order authorizes early identity-discovery subpoenas; it does not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.