Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-01627
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s identity before a Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and potentially another identified internet-service provider. John Doe may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena before the parties held the required discovery conference. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person assigned the internet address identified in the complaint.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient reason to seek that information early. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios and, if necessary, other internet-service providers identified through the subpoena process.
Judge Nelson Roman required certain notification and use limits. If Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator, it had to send the defendant a copy of the order, and Strike 3 could use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-01627
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 15, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held a conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with IP address 100.33.65.72.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena early. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena, which is a formal demand for information issued in litigation, and required Strike 3 to attach a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in response to the first subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. That provision concerns court-authorized disclosure of personal identifying information to a cable subscriber. Strike 3 could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.