Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-03696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed a subpoena seeking the unidentified subscriber’s name and address from the internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; the unidentified defendant associated with IP address 207.38.140.185; Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc.; and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe by an internet protocol address and asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case meeting. The subpoena was directed to Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., the internet service provider associated with that address.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to obtain the subscriber’s identifying information. It allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address and to serve similar subpoenas on other internet providers identified through those responses.
Judge Nelson S. Roman also required certain notice procedures if the provider qualifies as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion listed as ECF No. 8.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-03696
- Nelson Roman
- May 27, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought this action against “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 207.38.140.185.” It moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed recipient was Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc., identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The court cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning early discovery to identify an unknown defendant.
The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may require the provider to give Strike 3 the true name and address of the defendant to whom the provider assigned the IP address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve, in the same manner, a Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Astound Broadband/RCN, Inc. qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court directed it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under the quoted provision, disclosure of personal identifying information may be made under a court order if the subscriber is notified of the order by the person to whom the order is directed. The order states that this notice is to be provided by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Limits on Information and Disposition
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on the internet service provider only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8. The order does not state the nature of the underlying rights asserted in the complaint or make a final determination on the merits of those rights.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.