Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-06578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Cronan allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity before the case’s initial conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, associated with an internet protocol address. The opinion concerns Strike 3’s request to learn the defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet provider identified in response to a subpoena.
Judge Cronan required certain notice if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-06578
- John Cronan
- Sept. 10, 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 as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 108.21.213.188. The proposed recipient was Verizon Fios, which the order calls the internet service provider.
Ruling
Judge Cronan found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45, which allows subpoenas to obtain information from a nonparty, seeking 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 Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, the order required it to follow the statute’s notice procedure by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Effect of the Order
This was a discovery-related order about identifying the defendant. It did not decide whether Strike 3 would prevail on the claims in its complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.