Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-07921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Koeltl allowed an early subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant from an internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC was permitted to seek the anonymous defendant’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers. The defendant was entitled to the notice described in the order if the provider qualified as a cable operator.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the plaintiff asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management meeting. The defendant was identified only as the subscriber assigned a particular internet address.
The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause and allowed it to serve a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The court also allowed subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through the responses.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the plaintiff’s rights in the complaint and required certain notice to the defendant if the provider qualified as a cable operator. Judge Koeltl did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-07921
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.132.223.8.” The plaintiff moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, the required early meeting about managing a federal civil case.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the plaintiff had established “good cause” for serving a subpoena on Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider. The order relied on decisions recognizing that good cause can support early discovery to identify an unknown defendant.
Ruling
The court granted the motion by allowing the plaintiff to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. The court also allowed the plaintiff to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
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), including notifying the subscriber by sending the subscriber a copy of the order. The plaintiff could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint. Judge John Koeltl’s order addressed early discovery and identification of the defendant; it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.