Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-04679
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Halpern authorized early subpoenas to identify the defendant behind an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s true name and address from Optimum Fiber and certain other identified internet-service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is limited to enforcement of the rights described in the complaint.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required initial conference. The subpoena sought identifying information about the subscriber assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve Optimum Fiber. It authorized a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address and allowed similar subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified in response. The order also required certain notice if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order on June 16, 2025. The order allowed the early subpoenas but did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-04679
- Philip Halpern
- June 16, 2025
What the motion asked for
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC requested permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the required early meeting in a federal civil case to discuss discovery and case management. The subpoena was directed to Optimum Fiber, identified as the internet service provider, and concerned the subscriber assigned IP address 74.88.223.109.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” for early discovery. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Fiber with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring the provider to disclose the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
If Optimum Fiber qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under the quoted provision, disclosure of personal identifying information is permitted under a court order when the subscriber is notified of that order by the person receiving the order. The order therefore requires the provider to send a copy of the order to the defendant in that circumstance.
Limits on disclosure
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Optimum Fiber only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Effect of the order
This order addresses early discovery and identification of the defendant. It does not decide the merits of Strike 3’s claims or determine whether John Doe is liable.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.