Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:25-cv-02013
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern authorized a subpoena to identify the subscriber linked to the listed IP address before the normal discovery conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios and other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator condition applies, and the disclosed information is limited to enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held the usual discovery conference.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and authorized it to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also permits subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.

Judge Philip M. Halpern required the order to accompany the subpoenas and imposed limits on using the information. If Verizon Fios is a cable operator, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order before disclosing the information.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-02013
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Apr. 9, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference, the usual early meeting in a federal civil case where the parties discuss discovery. The defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 173.62.117.21. The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.

The order also authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained from a subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.

Subscriber notice

If Verizon Fios 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). Under that provision as quoted in the order, disclosure of personal identifying information may occur under a court order if the subscriber is notified of the order by the person to whom it is directed. Verizon Fios must therefore send a copy of this order to the defendant in that circumstance.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.