Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 18, 2025

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:25-cv-04676
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas authorized subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to the listed internet address before discovery begins.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe's name and address from Verizon Fios and potentially 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 use in enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned internet address 108.41.2.138. The opinion concerns Strike 3's request to obtain the subscriber's identity before the parties held their required early case-management conference.

The court found that Strike 3 had shown a legally sufficient reason, called “good cause,” to seek the information. It authorized Strike 3 to send Verizon Fios a subpoena—a formal demand for records—seeking the defendant's true name and address. It also authorized subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through those records.

Judge Kenneth Karas ordered that any cable operator must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order, and that Strike 3 may use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce the 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-04676
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
June 18, 2025

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, described as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 108.41.2.138. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties' conference required by Rule 26(f). A third-party subpoena is a formal demand for information from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit. The requested third party was Verizon Fios, which the order calls the internet-service provider.

Court's Analysis

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The order cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions recognizing this basis for seeking identifying information at this stage of a case.

Order

The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom Verizon Fios assigned the internet address listed in the complaint. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar subpoena on any other 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), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Kenneth Karas entered the order on June 18, 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.