Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- 1:25-cv-06411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court authorized subpoenas, but the opinion does not name the judge.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of John Doe from Starry and potentially other identified internet-service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the applicable cable-operator provision applies, and the disclosed information is restricted to enforcement of Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to issue a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to issue the subpoena to Starry, the internet service provider connected to the IP address listed in the complaint. The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address.
The court also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through that process. Judge information is not readable or provided in the opinion. The court required any disclosed information to be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in the complaint, and imposed a notice requirement if Starry qualifies as a cable operator.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-06411
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena concerns Starry, identified as the internet service provider assigned the IP address listed in the complaint: 38.15.197.15.
Court’s Reasoning and Order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Starry with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Starry to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Starry 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 a copy of the order to the defendant before disclosing personal identifying information. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Disposition
The court authorized the requested pre-conference subpoenas and set conditions on their use and, if applicable, notice to the defendant. The opinion does not identify the judge by name; the signature is not readable in the provided text. The order addresses discovery procedure and does not decide whether Strike 3 Holdings will prevail on the claims in its complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.