Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-06614
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed early subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from Verizon Fios and other identified providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios and certain other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned IP address 74.108.40.172. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early-case planning conference.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to require Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and allowed similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the responses.
Judge Briccetti also required certain notice procedures if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and limited Strike 3’s use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights stated in its complaint. The order granted permission to serve the subpoenas; it did not state a final decision on the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:20-cv-06614
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 31, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought an action against “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 74.108.40.172.” It asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That type of subpoena seeks information from a nonparty—in this order, an internet service provider—that could identify the defendant.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized 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 Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. That provision allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified by the person receiving the order.
Limits on Information Use
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The order concerns early discovery and subpoena service; the text does not state a final ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.