Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-00780
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the unidentified defendant’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant, Verizon Fios, and any additional Internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint only as the subscriber assigned a specified internet address.
The court found good cause for early discovery and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint. If Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator, it also had to notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order. Judge P. Castel issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-00780
- P. Castel
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued “John Doe,” identified as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 71.105.207.194. 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 third-party subpoena is a legal demand for information from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to obtain early discovery. It allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 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. The order stated that, if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it had to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. That provision permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified.
Strike 3 could use information obtained through the Verizon Fios subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The opinion’s disposition states that the motion was terminated after these permissions and limits were entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.