Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-02740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed early subpoenas to identify the Doe defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 74.108.137.3, Verizon Fios, and any later-identified internet service provider subject to a subpoena.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the plaintiff asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required initial case conference. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.
The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause for the early subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response to the first subpoena.
Judge Briccetti ordered that any disclosed information could be used only to protect and enforce the plaintiff’s rights in the complaint. If Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator, it also had to send the defendant a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-02740
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought the true name and address of the John Doe subscriber assigned the internet protocol address 74.108.137.3, as identified in the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court relied on decisions cited in the order concerning early subpoenas used to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena. Strike 3 Holdings could also serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it had to comply with the subscriber-notification requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. The information disclosed in response to the subpoena could be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights stated in the complaint. Judge Vincent Briccetti did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.