Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-03849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Woods granted early discovery, allowing a subpoena to Verizon Fios to identify the anonymous subscriber.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain early third-party discovery from Verizon Fios. John Doe, the subscriber associated with the specified IP address, and Verizon Fios receive notice and opportunities to object under the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, who was identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned to IP address 100.37.249.227. The company asked to obtain the subscriber’s name and address before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before that conference. Verizon Fios must try to identify the subscriber, notify the subscriber, and provide the subpoena and order. Verizon Fios and the subscriber may object or ask the court to cancel the subpoena within the stated deadlines.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings showed the required reasonableness and good cause, even under the heightened review applied to an ex parte request. Judge Woods granted the motion for early discovery but did not decide the merits of any possible future challenge to the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-03849
- Gregory Woods
- May 24, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to seek information from Verizon Fios before the parties had held the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested information was the name and address of the subscriber associated with IP address 100.37.249.227, identified in the caption as John Doe.
Legal standard
Rule 26(d) generally bars a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless a court authorizes the early discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with especially careful review because Strike 3 Holdings sought expedited discovery without first giving notice through a regular motion process.
The court noted that Strike 3 Holdings relied on a test used in cases involving motions to cancel subpoenas to protect an objecting party’s anonymity. The court stated that anonymity and any possible future motion to cancel the subpoena were not issues before it, and that the order was not a decision on the merits of such a motion.
Ruling and order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings met the reasonableness and good-cause standard and granted its motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference.
The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the subscriber’s name and address. Strike 3 Holdings’ lawyer must attach the court’s order to the subpoena.
Within seven days after receiving the subpoena, Verizon Fios must reasonably try to identify the subscriber and give that person a copy of the subpoena and order. If Verizon Fios cannot identify the subscriber to a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3 Holdings’ lawyer.
Verizon Fios has 21 days from service of the subpoena to ask the court to cancel it or otherwise object. The identified subscriber has 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Verizon Fios to do the same. If no objection or motion to cancel is filed, Verizon Fios must produce the requested information to Strike 3 Holdings within 21 days after notifying the subscriber.
Strike 3 Holdings may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The information may not be disclosed to anyone other than Strike 3 Holdings and its lawyers without further court permission. The clerk was also directed to terminate the motion listed at docket number 9.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.