Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2022

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:22-cv-02726
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Gardephe authorized an early subpoena seeking the defendant’s name and address from the internet provider.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from RCN and potentially other identified internet-service providers. John Doe may receive notice if RCN qualifies as a cable operator, 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 protocol address, but the defendant’s name was not provided in the opinion. Strike 3 asked to subpoena RCN before the parties held their initial discovery conference.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve RCN with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified in response, and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint.

Judge Gardephe also required additional notice if RCN qualified as a cable operator, postponed the scheduling conference until the defendant was named and served, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at Docket Nos. 6 and 8.

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-02726
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
May 6, 2022

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued “John Doe,” described as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 207.38.135.162. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a subpoena on RCN before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference, which is an early meeting about the case and discovery.

Court’s analysis and order

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve RCN with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring RCN to provide 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 other internet-service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the RCN subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.

If RCN qualifies as a cable operator under federal law, it must comply with the statutory notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order. The court will not schedule a Rule 16 conference until the defendant is named and served. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions pending at Docket Nos. 6 and 8.

Disposition

The order grants Strike 3 permission to pursue early third-party subpoenas for identifying information. It does not decide whether the defendant is liable or resolve the underlying claims.

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.