Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-06603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Gardephe allowed an early subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant from an internet 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 may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is subject to limits on its use.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address. The plaintiff asked to serve Verizon Fios before the parties held their required initial conference.
The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause to seek the information early. It authorized a subpoena requiring Verizon Fios to provide the true name and address of the person assigned that internet address.
Judge Gardephe also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through the process and imposed limits on disclosure and use of the information. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-06603
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 17, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, who was identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 74.108.53.79. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to seek the information before that conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom it had assigned the specified internet address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
Privacy and use limits
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under the cited federal law, it had to send John Doe a copy of the order when disclosing personal identifying information under the court-authorized process. Strike 3 could use information obtained through a subpoena served on the internet-service provider only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
This order addressed early discovery—the process of obtaining information before the usual discovery schedule—and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.