Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- 1:25-cv-01263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, the court allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Internet Services and, if applicable, other identified internet-service providers. John Doe may receive notice under the federal cable-privacy statute and Verizon may object to complying with the subpoena.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Internet Services before the parties held their required initial conference. The subpoena sought the defendant’s name and address associated with the listed internet address.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for early discovery. It allowed the company to serve Verizon and, if necessary, other internet-service providers identified through the responses. The company may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The court also required notice to the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applied, and stated that Verizon could object to complying with the subpoena. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion; the opinion does not identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01263
- Mar. 28, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet address 70.19.45.224. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Internet Services 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” for early discovery. The order permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena, and the order states that Verizon may raise objections to compliance.
The order also permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Verizon qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required the provider to send the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the authorized disclosure under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B).
Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 9. The opinion does not state the judge’s name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.