Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-10089
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an internet address, with limits on use and notice.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned internet address 173.56.38.240. The company asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management meeting.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to require Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and to subpoena another internet provider identified in response. The order also requires notice to the defendant if the provider qualifies as a cable operator and limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. issued the order on January 3, 2022, authorizing the early subpoenas and setting conditions for obtaining and using the identifying information.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-10089
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a lawsuit against John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet address 173.56.38.240. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That conference is an early meeting about the case and discovery.
Court’s action
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorizes Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address and must include a copy of the order.
The order also permits Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another 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 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the authorized disclosure.
Limits on disclosed information
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Disposition
The order authorizes the requested early third-party subpoenas subject to the stated notice and use restrictions. The text does not separately state the word “granted,” but it permits the subpoena service described in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.