Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.189.84.215
- 7:25-cv-08120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, the court allowed early subpoena discovery; the judge is not identified.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information from Optimum Online and potentially other internet service providers. John Doe may be identified and, if Optimum Online is a cable operator, must receive a copy of the order. The providers must respond as required by the subpoenas and the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties’ required early meeting. Strike 3 said there was good cause to seek the subscriber’s identifying information.
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response. If the provider is a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order as required by federal law.
The order limits Strike 3’s use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in its complaint. The court authorized these steps, but the opinion does not identify the judge.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.189.84.215 · No. 7:25-cv-08120
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a case against John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.189.84.215. Strike 3 moved 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, identified as the internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address associated with the internet address identified in the complaint. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.
The order also permits Strike 3 to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Disposition
The order authorizes the requested early third-party subpoena discovery. It does not decide the ultimate claims in the case. The opinion text does not clearly identify the judge, and its signing date appears as “2/6” followed by an unclear year; October 21, 2025 is the date supplied for filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.