Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-08818
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield granted permission to subpoena Verizon Fios for Doe’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers. John Doe must receive notice if the cable-operator privacy provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, and asked to contact Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management conference.
The court found good cause and granted the motion. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena requiring Verizon Fios to provide Doe’s true name and address, and allowed similar subpoenas to other identified internet providers. The information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
Judge Lorna Schofield also required notice to Doe if federal cable-privacy law applied and directed the clerk to close the motion. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-08818
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 100.2.43.215. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The requested subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established good cause for early discovery. It granted the motion at Docket No. 6 and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the true name and address of the defendant assigned the listed internet protocol address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The order also permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another 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), it had to comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Effect of the Order
This was an early-discovery order, not a decision on the merits of Strike 3 Holdings’ claims. Judge Lorna Schofield directed the clerk to close the open motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.