Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-08857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed a subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference to identify the defendant tied to an IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and certain other internet service providers. The defendant may receive notice if the cable-operator privacy provision applies, and the plaintiff’s use of the disclosed information is limited by the order.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held the required initial conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint only by an internet protocol address.
The court found good cause to allow the early subpoena. Verizon Fios may be ordered to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and the plaintiff may issue similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified in the responses.
Judge Kenneth Karas also required certain privacy protections. If the provider is a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order, and the plaintiff may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:20-cv-08857
- Kenneth Karas
- Nov. 5, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.129.163.138.” The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, described in the order as the internet service provider.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court therefore permitted the plaintiff to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena requesting the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also permits the plaintiff to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. The order states that the plaintiff may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on the internet service provider only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
Privacy-related requirement
If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision as quoted in the order, disclosure of personal identifying information may be made under a court order if the subscriber is notified. The order directs the provider to send a copy of the order to the defendant.
Disposition
The order permits early third-party discovery through the described subpoenas. It does not decide the underlying claims against the defendant. Judge Kenneth Karas issued the order on November 5, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.