Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-10738
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter allowed early discovery to identify the anonymous defendant through an internet-service-provider subpoena.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, the subscriber associated with the specified internet-protocol address, and Verizon Fios or any other internet provider responding to the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet-protocol address. The company asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ initial discovery meeting.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios for the subscriber’s true name and address, but not a telephone number or email address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified later.
Judge Carter required notice to the subscriber and gave the subscriber 45 days to challenge the subpoena, including anonymously. The internet provider could not disclose information while a challenge was pending, and any information received could be used only to litigate this case.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-10738
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, describing the defendant as the subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 173.68.93.53. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, the meeting at which parties ordinarily discuss and plan discovery. The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for early discovery. The order allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena requiring it to provide the subscriber’s true name and address. The subpoena could not seek the subscriber’s telephone number or email address. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach the order to the subpoena.
The order also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to the subscriber.
Notice and challenge procedures
Within 15 days after receiving the subpoena, the internet provider had to make a reasonable effort to identify the John Doe defendant and give that person copies of the subpoena and the order. If the provider could not identify the user of the internet-protocol address with reasonable technical certainty, it had to notify Strike 3 Holdings’ counsel in writing.
The subscriber had 45 days after service of the subpoena to file a motion challenging it, including a request to litigate anonymously. The provider could not disclose information to Strike 3 Holdings during that period. If no challenge was filed, the provider had to produce the information needed to comply with the subpoena within 10 additional days. If a challenge was filed, disclosure could occur only after the court resolved the challenge and ordered disclosure.
The provider could also move to cancel or object to the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, while protecting the subscriber’s identifying information. It had to preserve the subpoenaed information while any challenge was pending. Strike 3 Holdings could use disclosed information only to litigate this case.
Disposition
The court issued the requested order allowing the early third-party subpoena and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 6. The order addressed discovery procedures and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.