Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 8, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:21-cv-00273
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant, subject to stated limits.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios and certain other internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information may be used only for the purposes stated in the order.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3 Holdings’ request to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required initial discovery conference. The defendant was identified only as John Doe, associated with a specified internet address.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to seek the defendant’s true name and address from Verizon Fios. The order also permits subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through those responses.

Judge Karas ordered that any cable operator notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order, and limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in its complaint.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:21-cv-00273
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Mar. 8, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet protocol address 173.62.82.96. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the discovery conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.

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

If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under federal law, it must comply with the federal subscriber-privacy provision requiring notice to the subscriber when personal identifying information is disclosed under a court order. The order states that this notice must be provided by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.

Ruling

The order allows the requested early subpoenas. It limits Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Verizon Fios to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in its complaint. The order does not decide the underlying claims.

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.