Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-04081
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Koeltl authorized subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant behind an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the anonymous defendant identified by the internet address, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an anonymous defendant identified by an internet address. It asked to contact the internet provider before the parties held their required early case-management conference.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason, called “good cause,” to issue the subpoena. The order allowed a subpoena to Verizon Fios seeking the defendant’s true name and address, and allowed similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process.
The order also required notice to the defendant in certain circumstances and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the lawsuit. Judge John Koeltl did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-04081
- John Koeltl
- May 12, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. A third-party subpoena is a formal demand for information from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit. The defendant was identified in the case by the internet protocol address 74.101.157,102.
Court’s action
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider. The order authorized a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the true name and address of the defendant to whom the provider assigned the internet address listed in the complaint. Strike 3 Holdings was required to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
Privacy and use limits
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant when disclosure was made under the court order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
What the order decided
The order addressed early discovery—the process of obtaining information before the normal case-management conference—and did not decide the underlying claims against the anonymous defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.