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
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:21-cv-03970
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Furman allowed expedited discovery from Doe’s internet provider while keeping Doe anonymous.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek Doe’s identity through an expedited subpoena, while John Doe may remain anonymous and challenge the subpoena. Doe’s internet service provider must provide notice, preserve relevant information, and withhold identifying information until the stated deadlines and any court ruling are satisfied.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve an early subpoena on John Doe’s internet service provider to learn Doe’s identity in a copyright lawsuit. The court found that Strike 3 met the requirements for expedited discovery.

The court allowed the subpoena to seek Doe’s identity but not Doe’s email address or telephone number. Because of privacy concerns and the risk of mistaken identification, Doe could continue using the name John Doe unless the court later ordered otherwise.

Judge Jesse M. Furman also set procedures protecting Doe’s opportunity to object. The internet provider must give Doe copies of the subpoena and court materials, and Doe has 60 days to challenge the subpoena; the provider may not disclose identifying information before that period ends or while a timely challenge is pending.

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-03970
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
May 12, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on John Doe’s internet service provider before the parties’ required conference under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena sought information that could identify Doe in Strike 3’s copyright lawsuit.

The court relied substantially on its reasoning in a prior opinion addressing a similar request. It found that Strike 3 satisfied the requirements for expedited discovery, meaning discovery allowed before the usual case-management stage.

Rulings

The court granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the third-party subpoena on Doe’s internet service provider to obtain Doe’s identity. The court did not permit Strike 3 to subpoena Doe’s email address or telephone number.

The court also ordered that Doe could proceed anonymously as John Doe unless the court later ordered otherwise. It cited substantial privacy concerns arising from the nature of the copyrighted material at issue and the risk that the internet provider could mistakenly identify the person associated with the relevant internet connection. Strike 3 did not oppose allowing Doe to proceed anonymously.

Procedures and deadlines

The internet service provider must, within 60 days after being served with the subpoena, serve Doe with the subpoena, the court’s order, and the attached notice. Doe has 60 days after being served with the subpoena and order to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to quash or modify it. The provider may not disclose Doe’s identifying information before that 60-day period expires.

If Doe or the internet service provider timely moves to quash or modify the subpoena, the provider may not disclose information until the court resolves the issue and orders the provider to resume producing the requested discovery. The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. Any information ultimately disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights stated in its complaint. The court also directed the provider to confer with Strike 3 about production charges and prohibited advance charges before providing the requested information.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.