Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-03238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed subpoenas seeking Doe’s identity before formal discovery began.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the unidentified subscriber’s name and address from Verizon Fios and certain later-identified service providers. The subscriber must receive notice if the federal cable-operator disclosure rule applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case meeting. The subpoena seeks the name and address of the subscriber assigned the Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with the subpoena. The order also allows subpoenas to other Internet providers identified through that process, and limits use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
Judge Roman’s order requires notice to the subscriber if Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator under federal law. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-03238
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena is directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the Internet service provider, and concerns the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 72.80.113.42.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom the provider assigned the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.
The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing Internet services to one of the defendants. 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 defendant a copy of the order so the subscriber is notified of the court-authorized disclosure.
Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8. The order does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Effect of the Order
The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to seek identifying information about the subscriber assigned the listed Internet Protocol address. It affects Verizon Fios and any later-identified service provider that receives a subpoena, as well as the unidentified defendant whose information may be disclosed. The court’s action concerns early discovery and does not establish liability or resolve the claims in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.