Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-01620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield allowed early subpoenas to identify the unknown defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address, and asked to contact the internet provider before the usual early case-management meeting.
The court found good cause for Strike 3 to serve Spectrum, the identified internet provider, with a demand for the defendant’s true name and address. The order also permits similar demands to other internet providers identified through those responses.
The order limits use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. If the provider is a cable operator, it must send John Doe a copy of the order, as required by Judge Lorna Schofield’s order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-01620
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 15, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a case against John Doe, whom the complaint identifies as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 66.65.153.59. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. A subpoena is a formal demand for information or documents from a person or organization that is not a party to the case.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve Spectrum, referred to in the order as the internet service provider. The opinion cites decisions recognizing circumstances in which a plaintiff may seek information needed to identify an unknown defendant before the normal discovery schedule begins.
Order
The court’s order permits Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena requesting the true name and address of the defendant associated with the Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also permits Strike 3 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 Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under federal law, it must comply with the requirement that the subscriber be notified of the court order by sending John Doe a copy of it.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The order does not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.