Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:22-cv-02730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rakoff authorized subpoenas seeking Doe’s name and address from Spectrum or other identified internet providers.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, the plaintiff asked to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held their required early case conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint by an internet-protocol address assigned by an internet service provider.
The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause to seek the defendant’s identifying information. It authorized the plaintiff to subpoena Spectrum for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena another identified internet provider if necessary.
The order required the provider to return the information within 21 days. If the provider qualified as a cable operator, it had to notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order. Judge Jed S. Rakoff also limited the plaintiff’s use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02730
- Jed Rakoff
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 98.15.77.54. The plaintiff moved for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the plaintiff had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. Relying on decisions cited in the order, the court authorized a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The subpoena had to include a copy of the order.
The court also authorized the plaintiff to serve the same type of subpoena on another service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. The provider was required to return the requested information within 21 days of the order.
If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant as notice of the disclosure. The plaintiff could use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.
Disposition
The order authorized Strike 3 Holdings, LLC to serve the described third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference and imposed the stated notice, timing, and use restrictions. Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.