Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-02744
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed early subpoenas to identify the unknown defendant from an Internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe subscriber, Optimum Online, and any other Internet service provider responding to an authorized subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns an unknown defendant associated with the Internet Protocol address 69.115.186.19. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the Internet provider before the parties held their required early case-management conference.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Optimum Online for the defendant’s true name and address, and to subpoena other identified Internet service providers if necessary. Any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
Judge Vincent Briccetti entered the order on May 2, 2022, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The order addressed early information gathering and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-02744
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 2, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber associated with Internet Protocol address 69.115.186.19. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference, the early conference at which parties ordinarily discuss the case and discovery.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the early subpoena. The order cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning subpoenas used to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized 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.
If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must comply with the statute’s notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order before disclosing personal identifying information. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion. This order concerns pretrial discovery and identification of the defendant; it does not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.