Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Victor Marrero
- 1:25-cv-02005
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Marrero authorized subpoenas to identify the unknown defendant before the required conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information about the unknown defendant from Verizon Fios and potentially other internet service providers. The defendant may receive notice of the order in the circumstances described, but the opinion does not decide the merits of Strike 3’s claims.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3’s request to obtain information identifying the person assigned a specified internet address.
The court found good cause to allow a subpoena to Verizon Fios before the parties’ required conference. The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address and may also be served on other identified internet providers.
The order limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint and requires notice to the defendant in certain circumstances. Judge Victor Marrero entered the order on April 11, 2025.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-02005
- Victor Marrero
- Apr. 11, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The unidentified defendant is described in the complaint as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 108.29.51.139. The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” for early discovery. The order cites Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning subpoenas used to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. The order also permits Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must comply with the statute’s notice requirement by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. Judge Victor Marrero entered the order on April 11, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.