Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-00787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant associated with an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe defendant associated with IP address 68.194.178.170, Optimum Online, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held the normally required early case-planning conference. The subpoena would seek the name and address of the John Doe defendant associated with IP address 68.194.178.170.
The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Optimum Online for the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the responses.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. Judge Nelson S. Roman also required notice to the defendant if the provider qualified as a cable operator and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-00787
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 68.194.178.170. Strike 3 Holdings sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, which is the conference in which the parties ordinarily discuss the case and discovery.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a Rule 45 subpoena, a formal demand for information issued to a nonparty, requiring Optimum Online to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena.
The court also authorized 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 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 the defendant a copy of the order.
Limits and Disposition
Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through a Rule 45 subpoena served on Optimum Online only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 8. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide their merits.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning early discovery and identification of an otherwise unidentified defendant. It does not decide whether Strike 3 Holdings will prevail on its underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.