Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:22-cv-01615
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Stanton allowed early subpoenas seeking the defendant’s identity from internet service providers.
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 cable-operator disclosure provision applies.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the plaintiff asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person assigned the internet address identified in the complaint.
The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause for the early subpoena. It authorized subpoenas to Spectrum and, if identified, other internet-service providers to obtain the defendant’s true name and address.
Judge Stanton also required certain notice to the defendant and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the plaintiff’s rights in this case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-01615
- Louis Stanton
- May 27, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 142.255.59.254. The plaintiff moved for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Ruling
The court found that the plaintiff had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the true name and address of the defendant associated with the identified internet address. The plaintiff must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized the plaintiff to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet-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 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. That provision allows disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified of the order by the person receiving it.
Limits on Disclosure
The plaintiff may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.
Effect of the Order
This was an order allowing early discovery to identify an otherwise unnamed defendant. It did not decide the merits of Strike 3 Holdings’ claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.