Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:22-cv-02739
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman authorized an early subpoena to identify the John Doe defendant through Verizon Fios.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe subscriber, Verizon Fios, and any other internet-service provider identified through the subpoena process.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena before the parties held their required initial case conference. The subpoena sought the name and address of the John Doe subscriber linked to the internet address listed in the complaint.

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause and authorized the subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified in response. Any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint.

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Judge Nelson S. Roman authorized the early subpoenas and directed that the defendant receive a copy of the order if required by federal cable-privacy law. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-02739
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
May 2, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet-service provider, and sought the true name and address of the John Doe subscriber assigned the internet address identified in the complaint.

Court’s Analysis and Order

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena and required Strike 3 to attach a copy of the order.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator under federal law, it must comply with the law governing disclosure of subscriber-identifying information, including notifying the subscriber by sending the subscriber a copy of the order.

Limits and Disposition

Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8. The order does not expressly use the word “granted”; it finds good cause and authorizes the requested subpoenas.

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.