Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 15, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:22-cv-01614
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Failla authorized a subpoena to identify the defendant before the usual discovery conference.

Who this affects

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 learn the defendant’s name and address from the internet service provider, Spectrum.

The court found good cause to allow Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held the discovery-planning conference normally required by the federal rules. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses.

The order required certain notices and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the clerk to close the pending motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-01614
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Mar. 15, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 66.65.80.198. The requested subpoena sought the defendant’s true name and address from Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider.

Court’s Order

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 before the Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena must include a copy of the order and may seek the name and address of the defendant assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.

The order also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on another 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 the cited federal statute, it must send a copy of the order to the defendant when disclosing personal identifying information under the order. Strike 3 Holdings may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

Disposition

The order authorized the requested pre-conference subpoenas and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 8. It did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order on March 15, 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.