Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 13, 2021

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:21-cv-03977
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Roman allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for Doe’s name and address before discovery began.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified in response to the subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena before the parties held their required early case-management meeting. Strike 3 said it had good cause to seek the identity of the person using the listed internet address.

The court allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the true name and address of the subscriber assigned that address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response to the first subpoena.

The order requires certain notices and limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in this case. Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed the clerk to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:21-cv-03977
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
May 13, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by the internet protocol address 98.113.233.23. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That conference generally occurs early in a civil case and addresses the case’s discovery process.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider. The court permitted Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Verizon Fios to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom it assigned the internet protocol address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator under the cited federal law, it must comply with the law’s notice requirement by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.

Limits and Disposition

Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at Electronic Court Filing No. 8. The opinion is a discovery-related procedural order; 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.