Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Crotty
- 1:21-cv-01845
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe: Judge Crotty granted, without prejudice, permission to subpoena Verizon Fios for the subscriber’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of John Doe from Verizon Fios and, if identified, another internet service provider. John Doe’s identifying information may be disclosed subject to the order’s limits and any required notice.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required initial discovery conference. The plaintiff said it had good cause to seek the identity of the person assigned a specified internet address.
The court granted the request without prejudice. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and Strike 3 may subpoena another internet provider identified in the response. The information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in this case.
Judge Paul Crotty also stated that the order would automatically terminate if Verizon or another interested party chose to narrow the subpoena or raise legal arguments against compliance. If Verizon qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-01845
- Paul Crotty
- June 2, 2021
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address 68.129.254.190. The order states that Strike 3 established “good cause” for the early subpoena.
Ruling
The court granted Strike 3’s motion without prejudice. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s name and address, provided that Strike 3 attach a copy of the order. Strike 3 may also serve a similar subpoena on another service provider identified in Verizon Fios’s response as providing internet services to a defendant.
The disclosed information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order.
The order further states that it will automatically terminate if Verizon Fios or another interested party elects to narrow the subpoena or raise legal arguments against compliance. If Verizon Fios charges Strike 3 for producing the information, it must provide Strike 3 with a billing summary and cost report.
Effect of the Order
This was a discovery order concerning early identification of an unnamed defendant. It did not decide whether Strike 3’s underlying claims were valid. The motion was granted without prejudice, as ordered by Judge Paul Crotty.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.