Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-03845
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge McMahon allowed subpoenas to identify the Doe defendant from an assigned internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified Doe defendant, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, before the parties held their required initial conference. The subpoena sought the name and address of the subscriber assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause and allowed it to serve the subpoena. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response to a subpoena.
The order limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. Judge McMahon also required notice to the defendant if federal cable-privacy rules apply.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-03845
- Colleen McMahon
- June 6, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet address 68.174.7.105. Strike 3 sought information from Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider, to learn the defendant’s true name and address.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Spectrum to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom the internet provider assigned the address listed in the complaint. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 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.
Privacy notice and use restriction
If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision as quoted in the order, disclosure of personal identifying information may be made under a court order if the subscriber is notified of the order by the person receiving it. The order therefore requires the plaintiff to send a copy of the order to the defendant in that circumstance.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.