Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-10866
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman authorized subpoenas seeking the unidentified defendant’s name and address from the internet service provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; John Doe, the defendant associated with the listed internet protocol address; Optimum Online; and any other service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, associated with internet protocol address 69.127.208.18, and asked to obtain the defendant’s identity before the parties’ required preliminary conference.
The court found good cause for early discovery and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Optimum Online for the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allows subpoenas to other identified internet service providers, requires certain notice if a provider is a cable operator, and limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
Judge Nelson Roman issued the January 6, 2022 order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:21-cv-10866
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 6, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 69.127.208.18. The proposed subpoena was directed to Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider.
Court’s analysis and order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” for early discovery. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.
The order also authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena 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 states that it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant so the defendant is notified.
Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.