Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-01828
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed a subpoena to identify the unknown defendant behind an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought permission to subpoena Verizon Fios for the identity and address of John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address.
The court found good cause and authorized the company to serve the subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. It also authorized subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified in response.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti required any disclosed information to be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint, and required notice to Doe if federal cable-privacy law applied.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:21-cv-01828
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 11, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena sought information identifying John Doe, the defendant associated with internet protocol address 108.14.231.195.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet-service provider identified in the order. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under the cited federal law, it had to comply with the law’s notice requirement by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to a subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint.
Disposition
The order authorizes pre-conference subpoenas to identify the defendant and limits how the disclosed information may be used. The opinion does not decide the merits of the claims in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.