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
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:21-cv-03969
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter authorized an early subpoena to identify the anonymous internet subscriber.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the anonymous John Doe defendant associated with the listed internet address, Verizon Internet Services, and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe involves a request to identify a defendant associated with a listed internet address. Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Internet Services before the parties’ required early case meeting.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and authorized it to serve Verizon with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allows subpoenas to other internet providers identified in the response.

Judge Carter limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint. If Verizon is a covered cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing the information.

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-03969
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
May 13, 2021

Background

Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena would be directed to Verizon Internet Services and would seek the true name and address of the John Doe defendant assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that it attaches a copy of the order.

The order also permits 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 services to one of the defendants.

Conditions on Disclosure

If Verizon qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). That provision allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified of the order by the person receiving it. Accordingly, Verizon must send the defendant a copy of this order when making the disclosure.

Strike 3 Holdings may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint.

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.