Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-01528
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Oetken allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe defendant from Spectrum and other identified internet service providers, subject to the order’s notice and use restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an Internet Protocol address, and asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held the usual discovery conference.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Spectrum for the defendant’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered notice to the defendant in certain circumstances and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-01528
- James Oetken
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 67.250.179.49. The proposed subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to seek the information before the Rule 26(f) conference. It allowed Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under federal law, it had to comply with the statutory notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order before disclosing personal identifying information under a court order.
Strike 3 could use information obtained from the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The order addressed early discovery and subpoenas; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.