Smiles and Joys LLC v. Yellow-Cream.com at IP Address 23.227.38.65
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-07911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Smiles and Joys LLC v. Yellow-Cream.com, Judge Garnett authorized expedited subpoenas to identify the defendant through its service providers.
Smiles and Joys LLC may seek identifying information about Yellow-Cream.com from GoDaddy Inc., Hetzner Online GmbH, and Fastly, Inc. Yellow-Cream.com may challenge the subpoenas within 30 days after service, and the providers must follow the court’s notice, timing, and disclosure conditions.
What happened
In Smiles and Joys LLC v. Yellow-Cream.com at IP Address 23.227.38.65, Smiles and Joys asked to quickly subpoena GoDaddy, Hetzner Online, and Fastly for information identifying the defendant in a copyright case.
The court found that Smiles and Joys plausibly alleged copyright infringement, had good reason to seek the information, and requested only the defendant’s name and address. The court also found that the proposed subpoenas were appropriately limited.
Judge Garnett authorized the immediate subpoenas, subject to notice and protections allowing the defendant 30 days to ask the court to cancel or change them. The court also imposed reporting and use restrictions and postponed existing dates and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Smiles and Joys LLC v. Yellow-Cream.com at IP Address 23.227.38.65 · No. 1:25-cv-07911
- Garnett
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Smiles and Joys LLC asked for permission to serve expedited third-party subpoenas on GoDaddy Inc., Hetzner Online GmbH, and Fastly, Inc. These companies provide services for websites affiliated with Yellow-Cream.com at IP address 23.227.38.65. The subpoenas sought only the defendant’s name and address so that Smiles and Joys could identify and serve the defendant.
Court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally requires parties to meet and confer before beginning discovery, but it allows a court to permit discovery before that process when there is good cause and the request is reasonable. In a copyright case, courts also consider whether the plaintiff has shown a preliminary, legally sufficient case of infringement.
The court found that Smiles and Joys had a valid copyright in its product and had plausibly alleged infringement, satisfying the preliminary showing. It also found good cause because Smiles and Joys could not identify the defendant without the subpoenas. The court concluded that the requested information was specific and narrowly limited. For completeness, the court also stated that five additional factors supported issuing the subpoenas: the preliminary showing of infringement, the specificity of the requests, the lack of another way to obtain the information, the need for the information to litigate the case, and the defendant’s limited expectation of privacy in its name and address.
Order and effect
The court authorized Smiles and Joys to seek immediate discovery from the three providers by subpoena, requiring a copy of the order to accompany each subpoena. Smiles and Joys must file proof of service within three days after serving the subpoena and order. The providers must promptly notify the defendant of the order.
The defendant has 30 days from service to ask the court to cancel or modify the subpoena. The providers may not disclose identifying information before that period ends. If the defendant files such a motion, disclosure must wait until the court resolves the motion and issues an order directing disclosure. If the 30-day period passes without such a motion, the providers must provide the requested information within 10 days.
The providers must confer with Smiles and Joys and may not charge in advance. Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Smiles and Joys’s rights stated in its complaint. Smiles and Joys must provide the court with an update every 60 days unless the defendant moves to cancel or modify the subpoena; failure to provide timely updates may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to terminate docket entry 5, and the dates and deadlines from the court’s earlier order, including the November 18, 2025 conference, were postponed indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.