Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- 7:25-cv-06418
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, the court authorized early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant; the judge is not identified clearly.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the anonymous defendant’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and certain other internet-service providers, subject to the order’s notice and use restrictions; the defendant may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked to obtain information identifying a defendant associated with an internet protocol address before the parties held their required early case-management meeting. The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for the request.
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through that process. Any disclosed information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint.
The court also required additional notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator under federal law. The order was entered on August 26, 2025, and the court directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The judge’s name is not clearly legible in the opinion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:25-cv-06418
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 98.113.243.142. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, identified as the internet-service provider. The order authorizes Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also permits Strike 3 to serve the same kind of subpoena on any 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 compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order if the subscriber is notified of the order by the person to whom the order is directed. The provider may satisfy that requirement by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.
Disposition
The court granted Strike 3 permission to serve the specified third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. The opinion’s signature is not sufficiently legible to identify the judge by full name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.