Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-01830
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed subpoenas seeking the unidentified defendant’s name and address from internet providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet-service providers, subject to the order’s notice and use restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned internet address 96.250.6.28. The plaintiff asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required initial meeting.
The court found good cause and allowed the plaintiff to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
The order required notice to the defendant if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the March 11, 2021 order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:21-cv-01830
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 11, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, describing the defendant as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 96.250.6.28. The plaintiff moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that the plaintiff had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider. The court authorized a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The court also authorized the plaintiff to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena 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 by the person receiving the order. The plaintiff was permitted to use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
Disposition
The court allowed the requested pre-conference third-party subpoenas subject to the stated notice and use restrictions. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order on March 11, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.