Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-08822
- 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 linked to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios and certain other identified service providers. John Doe may receive notice if Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s pleaded rights.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case conference.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient reason to seek the defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.
Judge Carter authorized the subpoenas and required certain notice and use restrictions. If Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator, it had to send the defendant a copy of the order; Strike 3 could use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-08822
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 12, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties conducted the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 71.105.209.104.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorized a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Any subpoena had to include a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 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.
Ruling and Restrictions
The order required additional steps if Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5). In that situation, Verizon Fios had to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order, which notified the subscriber of the court-authorized disclosure.
Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.