Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 96.57.91.82
- 7:25-cv-07405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court authorized an early subpoena to identify the defendant from an Internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the unidentified defendant from Optimum Online and certain other service providers. The unidentified subscriber may receive notice if the cable-operator notification rule applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings sued a person identified in the case only as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 96.57.91.82. Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online before the parties held their required early case-management conference.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause. It authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Optimum Online for the defendant’s true name and address and allowed similar subpoenas to other Internet providers identified in the response. The information may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
The order did not decide whether Strike 3 will ultimately win its claims. The court also required special notification if the Internet provider is a cable operator and requested that the clerk terminate the motion at ECF No. 8. The judge was not identified in the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 96.57.91.82 · No. 7:25-cv-07405
- Oct. 8, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Optimum Online, the Internet service provider associated with the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint: 96.57.91.82. The defendant was identified as “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 96.57.91.82.”
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order permits Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Rule 45 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 type of subpoena on another service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing Internet services to one of the defendants. If Optimum Online qualifies as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order states that it must comply with the notification requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Limits and disposition
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The order does not address the merits of Strike 3’s underlying claims or determine whether the Doe defendant is liable. The clerk was requested to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.
Authorities cited
The order cited Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, Sony Music Entertainment v. Does 1–40, Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–11, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1–30 for the good-cause standard.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.