Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 12, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:20-cv-10742
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant’s internet account holder.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the person associated with the listed internet address from Verizon Fios and potentially other internet service providers. The defendant must receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies.

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’ normal early case meeting.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve subpoenas seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process.

Judge Castel required notice to the defendant if the provider is a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:20-cv-10742
Judge
P. Castel
Date
Feb. 12, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 74.101.33.198. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference, which is the meeting where parties ordinarily discuss the case and discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider identified in the order. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet address listed in the complaint.

The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

Ruling and limits

The court authorized the early subpoenas. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing personal identifying information under the court-authorized procedure. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained from the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.

Judge P. Castel issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.