Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge McMahon allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous internet subscriber linked to the alleged infringement.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe defendant 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 by an internet protocol address, and asked to subpoena the internet provider before the parties' required initial conference.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant's true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through that process.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered limits on how the information could be used and required notice to the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applied. The order did not decide the underlying infringement claim.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-01846
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identifying the defendant by the internet protocol address 68.160.223.213. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, which the order calls the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order relied on decisions including Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, Sony Music Entertainment v. Does 1–40, Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–11, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1–30.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court 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 order therefore required Strike 3 Holdings to send a copy of the order to the defendant in that circumstance. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The order addressed discovery and identification of the defendant; it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.