Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the unidentified defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios and other identified internet service providers; the defendant may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator condition applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3 Holdings’ request to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required initial conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint only by an internet address.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The company may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response to the first subpoena.
Judge Briccetti ordered that any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. If Verizon Fios is a covered cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the order as notice.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-04773
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 22, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference normally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified in the complaint as “John Doe,” a subscriber assigned the internet-protocol address 74.108.137.187.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to obtain information before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorized a Rule 45 subpoena—a formal demand for information issued in connection with a federal case—to Verizon Fios. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide Strike 3 Holdings with the defendant’s true name and address, and Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any 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 disclosure.
Ruling
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve the described third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. It limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through a subpoena served on Verizon Fios to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.