Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Crotty
- 1:20-cv-06594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Crotty allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios and other identified providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, whose internet address was identified in the complaint, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient reason to serve the subpoena early. It authorized a subpoena seeking the name and address of the customer assigned the internet address identified in the complaint.
The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. Judge Crotty issued the order on November 25, 2020.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-06594
- Paul Crotty
- Nov. 25, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested subpoena would be directed to Verizon Fios, which the order calls the internet service provider, and would concern the subscriber assigned internet address 71.105.204.101.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same kind of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
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), which permits disclosure of subscriber-identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified of the order. The order directs Verizon Fios to send a copy of the order to the defendant in that circumstance.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Paul Crotty issued the order on November 25, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.