Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-02011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Liman granted discovery of Doe’s identity while providing procedures to challenge or keep it private.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s name and addresses from Optimum Online. John Doe receives notice and 60 days to challenge the subpoena or request anonymity, while Optimum Online must follow the court’s notice and production procedures.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on CSC Holdings LLC, identified as Optimum Online, to learn the identity of a person it claims illegally distributed copyrighted content through file sharing.
The court allowed the subpoena, but limited it to John Doe’s true name and current and permanent address. It did not allow Strike 3 to request additional information, such as an email address or telephone number.
Judge Liman also required Optimum Online to notify John Doe and give him 60 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. If no one challenges it, Optimum Online may produce the requested information after an additional 10 days, and Strike 3 may use it only to protect its rights in the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-02011
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 11, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe and claimed that he illegally distributed its copyrighted content through peer-to-peer file sharing. Strike 3 said it sought to identify Doe through information held by his internet service provider, CSC Holdings LLC, identified in the order as Optimum Online.
Motion and Legal Standard
Strike 3 moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the usual discovery period. A subpoena is a legal demand for information from a person or entity that is not a party to the lawsuit. The court granted the motion for the reasons stated in its prior related decisions.
The court also found good cause for a protective order because of the substantial risk of false-positive identifications and the resulting risk of annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. A protective order is a court order limiting how discovery is obtained or used.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking information specifically to identify John Doe: his true name and current and permanent address. Strike 3 may not request additional information, including an email address or telephone number. The subpoena must include a copy of the order and the attached notice to the defendant.
Optimum Online must serve John Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the notice within 60 days after the subpoena is served on Optimum Online. It may use any reasonable method, including first-class mail or overnight service to Doe’s last known address.
John Doe has 60 days after receiving service of the subpoena to file a motion contesting it, including a motion to quash or modify it, or to ask to litigate the subpoena anonymously. If Doe contests the subpoena, he must notify Optimum Online at the same time, and Optimum Online may not release his contact information to Strike 3 while the motion is pending.
If neither Doe nor Optimum Online contests the subpoena within the 60-day period, Optimum Online will have 10 days to provide the responsive information to Strike 3. Strike 3 may use any information disclosed in response only to protect its rights as stated in its complaint. The court therefore granted Strike 3’s motion and imposed the specified notice, challenge, anonymity, and use restrictions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.