Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 173.3.103.209. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. A third-party subpoena is a legal demand directed to someone who is not a party to the lawsuit. The proposed recipient was Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

If Optimum Online qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court directed it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision as quoted in the order, the provider could disclose personal identifying information under a court order if the subscriber was notified of the order. The order required the provider to send a copy of the order to the defendant.

Finally, the court limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information disclosed in response to the subpoena. It could use that information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

Effect of the Order

This was a procedural discovery order. It allowed Strike 3 Holdings to seek identifying information about the anonymous defendant; it did not decide the merits of the claims or determine whether the defendant was liable.