Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-02738
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel allowed early subpoenas to identify the unknown defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and potentially other internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the applicable cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address, and asked to contact the internet service provider before the usual early case-management conference. The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for that request.
The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. It also permits subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses. The order requires certain notice to the defendant if the provider is a cable operator and limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint.
Judge Castel granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve the early subpoenas. The order did not decide whether Strike 3 Holdings would ultimately prevail against John Doe.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02738
- P. Castel
- May 24, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, whom the complaint identifies by the internet address 98.116.189.83. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena would be directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and would seek the defendant’s true name and address.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The opinion cites Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning this type of request.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the true name and address of the defendant assigned the internet address identified in the complaint. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena. The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order states that it may disclose personal identifying information under 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) pursuant to the court order, if the defendant is notified by the person to whom the order is directed. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Disposition and Scope
Judge Castel granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve the early third-party subpoenas. The order addressed discovery and identification of the unknown defendant; it did not decide the merits of Strike 3 Holdings’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.