Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-10748
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti authorized early subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from Verizon Fios and related providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and certain other identified Internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the cable-privacy provision described in the order applies.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management meeting. The defendant was identified in the complaint by an Internet Protocol address.
The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to seek the defendant’s true name and address from Verizon Fios. It also allowed subpoenas to other Internet providers identified in response. The information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
Judge Vincent Briccetti also required Verizon Fios to notify the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applied to the disclosure. The order was entered on December 29, 2020.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:20-cv-10748
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 29, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 74.108.124.245. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to seek early discovery. Early discovery is information-gathering allowed before the usual discovery schedule begins. The order relied on decisions holding that such circumstances can support a subpoena seeking the identity of an unknown defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena could require Verizon Fios to provide the true name and address of the defendant assigned the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response 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 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The order therefore required a copy of the order to be sent to the defendant in that circumstance.
Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the Verizon Fios subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The order was entered on December 29, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.