Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-02724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Judge Cronan authorized early subpoenas to identify the unnamed defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena before the parties’ required early case conference. The subpoena was directed to Spectrum, the internet service provider connected to the internet address listed in the complaint.
The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to use a subpoena to seek the defendant’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint, addressed notice requirements if the provider is a cable operator, and directed the clerk to close the motion. Judge Cronan did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02724
- John Cronan
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties held the conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 24.193.4.151. Strike 3 Holdings sought information from Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to obtain the information early. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as having provided internet service to one of the defendants.
If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending the defendant a copy of the order so the defendant would be notified of the authorized disclosure.
Limits and disposition
Strike 3 Holdings could use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 6. The order addressed early discovery and identification of the unnamed defendant; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.