Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-06581
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield allowed an early subpoena seeking Doe’s identity from Verizon Fios.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant associated with the specified Internet Protocol address, Verizon Fios, and any other Internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant associated with a specified Internet Protocol address and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required early case meeting.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It allowed Strike 3 to seek the defendant’s true name and address from Verizon Fios and, if identified, from other Internet service providers. The information could be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
Judge Lorna Schofield also required notice to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and disclosed personal identifying information under the applicable federal law. The court waived the requirement for a pre-motion letter.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-06581
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 1, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued “John Doe,” identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 173.77.170.252. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the early subpoena. The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must 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 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 a copy of the order to the defendant when disclosing personal identifying information under the court order. Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint.
Other Order
The court waived the requirement to file a pre-motion letter under Individual Rule III.A.1. The order does not decide the underlying allegations against the unidentified defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.