Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 1, 2020

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-07913
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield authorized a subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and other identified Internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the federal cable-privacy provisions described in the order apply, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3 Holdings’ request to identify John Doe, who was assigned the Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint.

Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The court found good cause for the request.

Judge Schofield allowed the subpoena and similar subpoenas to identified Internet providers, limited use of the information to enforcing the complaint’s rights, and required notice to Doe if federal cable-privacy law applied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-07913
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 1, 2020

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 108.14.33.122. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve Verizon Fios, described as the Internet service provider. The order allowed Strike 3 Holdings to use a Rule 45 subpoena to request Doe’s true name and address and required a copy of the order to be attached to the subpoena.

The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other Internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena. If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under federal law, it was required to comply with the law governing disclosure of subscriber-identifying information, including by sending Doe a copy of the order.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield authorized the requested pre-conference subpoena process. Strike 3 Holdings may use information produced in response to a subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The requirement to file a pre-motion letter under the judge’s individual rules was waived.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.