Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-08229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Judge Castel allowed an early subpoena to identify the defendant from an Internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified Internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the federal cable-operator notice rule applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the case by an Internet address assigned by Verizon Fios. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court found good cause for Strike 3 Holdings to seek information before the parties held their required early case-management conference. It allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s true name and address from Verizon Fios and, if identified, other Internet-service providers. The information could be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint.
The order was issued by Judge P. Castel on January 3, 2022. It also required certain notice to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator under federal law.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-08229
- P. Castel
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. That conference is an early meeting in a federal lawsuit at which the parties generally discuss the case and a proposed schedule. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol (IP) address 71.105.226.212. The proposed recipient of the subpoena was Verizon Fios, referred to in the order as the Internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The order also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing Internet services to one of the defendants. If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it had to comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Effect of the Order
This was an early-discovery order concerning identification of the defendant; it did not decide the underlying claims. Judge P. Castel entered the order on January 3, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.