Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-00232
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel allowed subpoenas seeking Doe’s identifying information before discovery began.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet-service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The defendant was identified only as John Doe, associated with a specified internet address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios for Doe’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses.
Judge Castel limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights alleged in the complaint and adjourned the initial pretrial conference. The order addressed discovery only and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-00232
- P. Castel
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet protocol address 100.12.71.133. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims beyond referring to the rights asserted in the complaint.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to subpoena Verizon Fios. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address, with a copy of the order attached. The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any internet-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) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained from the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Other action and effect
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference, originally scheduled for March 4, 2021, to June 7, 2021, at 10:45 a.m. The order granted discovery-related relief; it did not resolve the merits of Strike 3 Holdings’ claims or determine whether Doe was liable.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.