Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-10871
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas permitted a subpoena seeking the anonymous defendant’s identifying information before discovery began.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios and, if identified, other internet-service providers. John Doe is entitled to the specified notice if the cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early discovery conference.
The order found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to serve the subpoena. It allowed the company to seek the defendant’s true name and address from Verizon Fios and, if necessary, from other identified internet-service providers.
Judge Kenneth Karas required certain notice if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:21-cv-10871
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 4, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, describing the defendant as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 74.108.143.210. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), which ordinarily occurs early in a federal lawsuit to discuss discovery.
Court’s Ruling
The order found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause”—a sufficient reason—for serving the subpoena before that conference. It permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena 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 permitted Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service 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 comply with the notice provision in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The order addressed early discovery and disclosure of identifying information; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.