Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 11, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-01626
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed Strike 3 Holdings to seek Doe’s name and address through early subpoenas.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The subpoena would seek information about the subscriber assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and authorized a subpoena to Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. The court also authorized subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through those responses. If Verizon Fios is legally considered a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing identifying information.

The information obtained through the subpoena may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in the complaint. Judge Vincent Briccetti’s order authorized the early subpoenas but did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-01626
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 11, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 108.54.180.140. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). A subpoena is a legal demand for information from a person or entity that is not a party to the lawsuit.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to subpoena Verizon Fios, which the order calls the internet service provider. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must 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 Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal law, it must comply with the law governing disclosure of subscriber information by sending the defendant a copy of this order. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.

Effect of the order

The order concerns early discovery—the collection of information before the ordinary discovery process begins. It permits Strike 3 Holdings to pursue identifying information about the defendant, but it does not decide whether Strike 3 Holdings will prevail on the claims in the complaint. Judge Vincent Briccetti signed the order on March 11, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.