Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Crotty
- 1:20-cv-05425
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Crotty allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity and address from Spectrum and other providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the anonymous defendant from Spectrum and potentially other Internet service providers. The defendant may receive notice if the cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a person identified as John Doe by an Internet Protocol address assigned by Spectrum. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to obtain the defendant’s identity before the parties’ required initial conference. It authorized subpoenas to Spectrum and, if identified, other Internet providers for the defendant’s true name and address.
Judge Paul Crotty limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. If Spectrum qualified as a cable operator, it also had to send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing personal information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-05425
- Paul Crotty
- Aug. 19, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption as “JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 69.201.191.54.” Spectrum was identified as the Internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena could require Spectrum to provide Strike 3 with the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 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 Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing personal identifying information. Strike 3 could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint.
Effect of the Order
This was an early discovery order concerning identification of the anonymous defendant. It did not decide whether Strike 3 would prevail on the claims in its complaint. Judge Paul Crotty authorized the requested subpoenas subject to the stated conditions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.