Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-01624
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Koeltl authorized a subpoena seeking Doe’s identity before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other Internet service provider identified in response to the subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an Internet Protocol address, and asked to serve Spectrum, the Internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties’ required discovery conference.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause and allowed it to subpoena Spectrum for Doe’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other Internet providers identified in response and limited use of the information to enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit.
Judge John Koeltl further required notice to Doe if the provider qualified as a cable operator and the law required that notice before disclosure. The order addressed early discovery and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-01624
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identifying the defendant by the Internet Protocol address 74.71.173.169. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, identified as the Internet service provider, before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order relied on decisions including Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, Sony Music Entertainment v. Does 1-40, Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-30.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Spectrum to provide the true name and address of the defendant assigned the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing Internet services to one of the defendants.
If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it was required to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision as quoted in the order, disclosure could be made pursuant to a court order authorizing it if the subscriber was notified of the order by the person to whom the order was directed. The order therefore required a copy to be sent to the defendant in that circumstance.
Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint. The order concerned early discovery and did not decide whether Strike 3 would prevail on its underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.