Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:21-cv-01843
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Rakoff allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, and Strike 3’s use of the disclosed information is limited to enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case conference. The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient reason to seek the defendant’s identity.
The court allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses. Any subpoena must include the court’s order.
Judge Rakoff limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order as notice before disclosing personal identifying information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-01843
- Jed Rakoff
- Mar. 17, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held a conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought information from Verizon Fios about the subscriber assigned the internet protocol address identified in the complaint. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims beyond referring to Strike 3’s rights asserted in the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause”—a sufficient reason—for serving the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order relied on decisions recognizing this procedure. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. Each subpoena must include a copy of the order.
Ruling
The order permits the early subpoenas. It limits Strike 3’s use of information obtained from a subpoena served on Verizon Fios to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must comply with the statute’s notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order before disclosing personal identifying information.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.