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
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-02732
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield allowed early subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from Spectrum and other internet providers.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum and certain other internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies, and the disclosed information may be used only for the purposes stated in the order.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties’ required early case-management conference. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for early discovery. It allowed subpoenas seeking John Doe’s true name and address and permitted similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.

The order also required certain notice to John Doe if Spectrum qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02732
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 2, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 67.245.107.41. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena would be directed to Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” for the early subpoena. The opinion cites Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions addressing this type of discovery.

Order

The court allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the true name and address of the person assigned the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending John Doe a copy of the order. The court further limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through the subpoena to protecting and enforcing its rights stated in the complaint. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order.

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.