Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-08859
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the anonymous defendant identified by the internet address 96.250.170.29, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held a required early case-management meeting.
The court found good cause for the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to request the defendant’s true name and address associated with the listed internet address, and to subpoena other internet providers identified in response.
Judge Nelson Roman limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint and required notice to the defendant if the provider qualified as a cable operator.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:20-cv-08859
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and sought information about the subscriber assigned the internet address 96.250.170.29.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning early discovery to identify an anonymous defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena. Strike 3 Holdings could also 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 compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending the defendant a copy of the order to provide notice of the disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings could use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Nelson Roman signed the order on November 2, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.