Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-10870
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti authorized subpoenas seeking the unidentified defendant’s name and address before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant John Doe, Optimum Online, and any other service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe involved Strike 3 Holdings’s request to obtain identifying information about a defendant known only as the subscriber assigned to a specified Internet address.
The court found good cause for an early subpoena to Optimum Online, the Internet service provider. The order also allowed subpoenas to other Internet providers identified through the responses, and limited use of any information obtained to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’s rights described in its complaint.
Judge Briccetti authorized the subpoenas and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. If Optimum Online qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:21-cv-10870
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference normally required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the Internet Protocol address 24.228.62.129. The proposed subpoena was directed initially to Optimum Online, identified as the Internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cited decisions recognizing that such early subpoenas may be permitted.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Optimum Online with a Rule 45 subpoena requesting the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena. The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing Internet services to one of the defendants.
If Optimum Online 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) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant, thereby notifying the subscriber of the authorized disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.