Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-03843
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Failla allowed early subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information through subpoenas to Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers; John Doe is the subscriber whose identity and address may be disclosed, subject to the order’s notice and use restrictions.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case meeting. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena requiring that information. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response to the first subpoena.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla required notice to the subscriber if the provider is a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-03843
- Katherine Failla
- June 1, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant to whom Verizon Fios assigned the internet address listed in the complaint: 71.245.243.30.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court therefore allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45, provided that Strike 3 attached a copy of the order. The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must send the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the authorized disclosure. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.