Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Carter authorized early subpoenas to identify the subscriber assigned the listed internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe, the subscriber assigned internet address 70.23.28.59. Verizon Fios and any other identified internet service provider must follow the order’s notice, preservation, withholding, and disclosure procedures.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned internet address 70.23.28.59. Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to seek the subscriber’s true name and address, but not a telephone number or email address. The order requires notice to the subscriber, gives the subscriber 45 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously, and prevents disclosure while any challenge is pending.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process and required providers to preserve information, protect the subscriber’s identity in any objections, and disclose information only for litigating this case.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-02009
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, which the order calls the internet service provider, and concerned the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 70.23.28.59. The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” for early discovery.
What the Court Authorized
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the subscriber’s true name and address. The subpoena may not seek the subscriber’s telephone number or email address, and Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the subscriber.
If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must follow 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 make a reasonable attempt to identify the John Doe sued in the case and give that person a copy of the subpoena and order. If the provider cannot identify the user of the internet address with reasonable technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3’s counsel in writing.
Subscriber and Provider Protections
The subscriber has 45 days from service of the subpoena to file a motion contesting it, including a request to litigate anonymously. The provider may not disclose subpoenaed information to Strike 3 during that period. If the period expires without a challenge, the provider must produce the information needed to comply with the subpoena within 10 additional days.
The provider may move to quash or otherwise object to the subpoena under the usual requirements of Rule 45, but its filings must not disclose identifying information to Strike 3. 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 subpoenaed information while any challenge is pending.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. authorized the early subpoena process and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Strike 3’s motion at ECF No. 6. Any information disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel may be used only to litigate this case. The order addresses pretrial discovery and the procedures for protecting and challenging the subscriber’s identifying information.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.