Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-08821
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the court considered Strike 3 Holdings’ request to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint only by an internet address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses.
The order required notice to the subscriber if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. Judge Andrew Carter issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-08821
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 12, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 68.129.200.102. The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, which the order called the internet service provider.
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 allowed 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 be attached to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet 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), the order required it 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. The information obtained through a Rule 45 subpoena served on the internet service provider could be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in the complaint.
Effect of the Order
This was a discovery order allowing early subpoenas to identify the defendant; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.