Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.1.113.41
- 7:25-cv-07406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe: the court allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant, without naming the judge.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and certain other internet-service providers. The unidentified subscriber may receive notice if the cable-operator notification rule applies.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.1.113.41, the court found good cause for early discovery before the parties’ required initial conference. It allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address.
The court also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through those responses. Any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. The order also required notice to the defendant if a cable-operator rule applied.
The court’s text does not identify the judge by name. The court entered the order on October 8, 2025, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.1.113.41 · No. 7:25-cv-07406
- Oct. 8, 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 was directed to Verizon Fios, identified as the internet-service provider associated with the IP address listed in the complaint.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” for the early subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet-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 it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The order further limits Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through the subpoena to protecting and enforcing its rights stated in the complaint.
What the order did not decide
The opinion concerns early discovery and identifying the person associated with an IP address. It does not decide the underlying claims against John Doe. The court’s text does not use an express “granted” or “denied” label for the motion, but it permits the requested subpoenas and directs the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.