Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-00789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed the plaintiff to subpoena internet providers for Doe’s identity before a Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and other identified internet-service providers, subject to the order’s notice and use restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet-protocol address assigned by Verizon Fios. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to seek information identifying Doe before the parties held the required Rule 26(f) conference. The order allowed subpoenas to Verizon Fios and, if identified, other internet-service providers.
Judge Briccetti’s order required notice to Doe if federal cable-privacy law applied and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-00789
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held a conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe, the subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 72.80.135.42. The opinion does not state the claims in the complaint.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to obtain identifying information before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking Doe’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The order also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-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), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of subscriber-identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The order further limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through the subpoena to protecting and enforcing its rights stated in the complaint.
Disposition
The court granted the requested permission to serve the third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order addressed discovery and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.