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
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:22-cv-02737
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Failla authorized subpoenas to identify the anonymous subscriber connected to a listed internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Spectrum and potentially other identified internet-service providers; John Doe may receive notice if the cable-operator disclosure provision applies.

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 meeting.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to obtain the subscriber’s identity and address from Spectrum. The order also allows subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through the subpoena process.

The court authorized the subpoenas and imposed limits on disclosure and use of the information. Judge Failla required notice to the subscriber if the law governing cable operators applies.

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-02737
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
May 2, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the conference generally required at the beginning of a federal case. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 74.71.106.124.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause”—a sufficient reason—for serving the subpoena before that conference. The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.

The order also permits 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 qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing the requested personal identifying information.

Ruling

The court authorized the subpoenas. It limited Strike 3 Holdings’s use of information obtained through a subpoena served on the internet service provider to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in its complaint. The order does not decide the underlying claims.

Effect

The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to seek identifying information about the anonymous defendant from Spectrum and potentially other identified service providers. It does not itself identify John Doe or impose liability on him.

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.