Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 22, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:25-cv-03694
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant from an assigned internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoena process.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court to identify John Doe, whose internet service provider had assigned the IP address 69.206.159.186. The request sought permission to subpoena the provider before the parties held their required early case-planning conference.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings may also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process. If Spectrum is a covered cable operator, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order.

Judge Philip M. Halpern limited use of any information obtained through the subpoena to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint.

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-03694
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
May 22, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena would be directed to Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of John Doe, the subscriber assigned IP address 69.206.159.186.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that Strike 3 Holdings attaches a copy of the order.

The court also authorized 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.

If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order if the subscriber is notified. The notification must be made by sending the defendant a copy of the order.

Limit on Information Use

Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the order on May 22, 2025.

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.