Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-01435
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Castel allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Spectrum for Doe’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum and certain other internet service providers; the order also addresses notice and limits on use of that information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a person identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the IP address shown in the complaint. Before the parties’ required initial conference, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, for Doe’s identifying information.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena requiring Spectrum to provide Doe’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through that process.
Judge Castel required certain notice if Spectrum qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-01435
- P. Castel
- June 2, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned the IP address listed in the complaint. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the conference generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The opinion does not describe the underlying claim in detail.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings 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 Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning early discovery. The court authorized subpoenas to identify an unnamed defendant but did not decide the merits of Strike 3 Holdings’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.