Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-01282
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel allowed subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant before ordinary discovery began.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may serve subpoenas seeking the identity and address of John Doe. Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., and any other identified internet service provider, may be required to respond; John Doe must receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to subpoena the internet provider before the parties held their required initial discovery meeting. The opinion does not decide whether Doe infringed any rights or whether Strike 3 will win the case.
The court found good cause for Strike 3 to subpoena Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. The subpoena may require the provider to disclose Doe’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in the response as providing internet service to a defendant.
The order also requires notice to Doe if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and limits use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. Judge P. Castel granted permission to serve the subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01282
- P. Castel
- Mar. 28, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought an action against John Doe, identified in the complaint by the internet protocol address 65.78.3.166. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., the internet service provider associated with that address, before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. That conference is the required early meeting at which parties ordinarily discuss how discovery will proceed.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the conference. The order relies on Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning early subpoenas seeking the identity of an anonymous defendant.
Order
The court permitted Strike 3 to serve Astound Broadband/RCN with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may command the provider to disclose the true name and address of the defendant to whom the provider assigned the specified internet address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also permitted Strike 3 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 Astound 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 as notice of the disclosure. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
The order addresses pre-conference discovery and identification of the anonymous defendant. It does not resolve the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.