Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-04723
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Cronan allowed early subpoena discovery to identify the defendant through an internet provider.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information about John Doe from Spectrum and potentially other identified internet-service providers. John Doe must be notified if the applicable cable-operator provision applies, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address, and asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held their required initial planning conference. The subpoena would seek the defendant’s true name and address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with the subpoena. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through that process. The information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint. If Spectrum qualified as a cable operator, it had to notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order. The order addressed early discovery only; it did not decide whether Strike 3 Holdings would ultimately prevail on its claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-04723
- John Cronan
- June 21, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 98.13.210.150. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). A subpoena is a court-authorized demand for information from a person or organization that is not a party to the lawsuit.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to obtain the information before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also allowed Strike 3 Holdings 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 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) by sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the authorized disclosure.
Ruling and Effect
The court allowed the requested early third-party discovery. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The order did not decide the merits of Strike 3 Holdings’ claims or determine whether John Doe was liable.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.