Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:25-cv-05665
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rakoff allowed Strike 3 to subpoena an internet provider for Doe’s identifying information before discovery began.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek identifying information about John Doe from Spectrum and other identified internet-service providers; those providers must follow the order’s disclosure and notice requirements.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to obtain information identifying the defendant associated with the IP address listed in the complaint. The ruling concerned discovery and did not decide the underlying claims.
The order allows Strike 3 to serve Spectrum, the internet service provider, with a subpoena requiring the subscriber’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in Spectrum’s response. The provider must return the requested information within 21 days of the order.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff limited Strike 3’s use of the information to protecting and enforcing its rights described in the complaint. If the provider is a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when making the disclosure.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-05665
- Jed Rakoff
- July 24, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena seeks the true name and address of the defendant, identified in the complaint as John Doe and associated with IP address 184.153.52.211. Spectrum is identified as the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions addressing this type of early discovery.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena, provided that Strike 3 attaches a copy of the order. The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
Spectrum must provide the requested information within 21 days of the order. If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 may use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted Strike 3’s motion for early third-party discovery. The order addressed only the subpoena and permitted use of identifying information; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.