Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 12, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-03963
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Failla authorized subpoenas seeking the defendant’s name and address from internet service providers.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider is subject to the federal cable-privacy provision, and the information may be used only for the purposes stated in the order.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, whose internet address was listed in the complaint. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held the required early case-management conference.

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause and authorized a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through the responses.

The subpoenaed provider must notify the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applies, and Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint, according to Judge Failla.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-03963
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
May 12, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet address 100.38.251.54. The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also authorizes Strike 3 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.

Privacy condition and permitted use

If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under federal law, it must comply with the applicable privacy provision by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on the internet service provider only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

Disposition

The order provides the requested permission to serve the described third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. It does not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.

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.