Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-01273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Carter authorized discovery from an internet provider to identify the subscriber sued.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the subscriber’s name and address; the internet service provider must follow the order’s notice, preservation, and disclosure procedures; and John Doe, the subscriber associated with IP address 24.168.122.191, may challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet-protocol address, and asked to serve a subpoena on the internet service provider before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to seek the information.
The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena the provider for the subscriber’s true name and address, but not a telephone number or email address. The provider must notify the subscriber and give the subscriber 45 days to challenge the subpoena, including by asking to proceed anonymously. The provider cannot disclose the information while a challenge is pending and may object to the subpoena itself.
The order also limits use of any disclosed information to this case and requires the provider to preserve the information. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and a related letter motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-01273
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, referred to in the order as the internet service provider, before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena seeks to identify the John Doe defendant associated with IP address 24.168.122.191. The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” for early discovery.
What the Order Allows
The order authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Spectrum seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. The subpoena may not seek the subscriber’s telephone number or email address. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
If Spectrum identifies another internet-service provider connected to the subscriber, Strike 3 Holdings may serve that provider with a subpoena in the same manner. If Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with the notification requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the subscriber a copy of the order.
Within 15 days after the subpoena is served, the provider must reasonably attempt to identify the John Doe defendant and provide that person with copies of the subpoena and order. If the provider cannot identify the user of the IP address with reasonable technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3 Holdings’ counsel in writing.
Opportunity to Challenge the Subpoena
The subscriber has 45 days from service of the subpoena to file a motion challenging it, including a request to litigate anonymously. The provider may not disclose subpoenaed information to Strike 3 Holdings during that period. If no challenge is filed, the provider must produce the information needed to comply with the subpoena within 10 additional days.
The provider may move to quash, meaning cancel, the subpoena, or otherwise object under Rule 45. Any filing must avoid disclosing the affected subscriber’s identifying information to Strike 3 Holdings. If a challenge is filed, the provider must withhold the information until the court resolves the challenge and orders disclosure. The provider must preserve the information while any challenge is pending.
Disposition
The order authorizes the requested third-party discovery and limits Strike 3 Holdings’ use of any disclosed information to litigating this case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 9 and the related letter motion at ECF No. 7 as moot. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. signed the order on April 8, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.