Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Loretta Preska
- 1:25-cv-05666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Preska allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant from an assigned IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, and Internet service providers that may receive subpoenas or identify another provider.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required initial case-management conference. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, associated with a specified Internet Protocol address.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to subpoena Verizon Fics, identified as the Internet service provider, for the defendant’s true name and address. The order also permits subpoenas to other Internet service providers identified through that process.
The subpoenaed provider may have to notify the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applies, and Strike 3 Holdings may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Loretta Preska did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-05666
- Loretta Preska
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 100.38.103.6. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or the factual allegations in the complaint.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve Verizon Fics, identified in the order as the Internet service provider. The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 demanding the defendant’s true name and address.
The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as having provided Internet services to one of the defendants.
If the provider qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order directs it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of identifying information under a court order if the subscriber is notified of that order by the person to whom the order is directed. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Effect of the order
This is an early-discovery order allowing subpoenas intended to identify an anonymous defendant. The order does not decide the underlying claims or impose a final judgment on them.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.