Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed early subpoenas to identify the John Doe defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe defendant associated with Internet Protocol address 72.89.42.102, Verizon Fios, and any other service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber associated with Internet Protocol address 72.89.42.102 and asked to identify the person behind that address.
The company sought permission to serve Verizon Fios, and potentially other Internet service providers, with subpoenas before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The subpoenas would request the defendant’s true name and address.
The court found good cause and allowed the subpoenas, subject to conditions on notice and use of the information. Judge Briccetti’s order limited the information’s use to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-04775
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 22, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a case against John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 72.89.42.102. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, identified as the Internet service provider. The order relied on decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York concerning early subpoenas used to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the true name and address of the defendant to whom Verizon Fios assigned the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 Holdings had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed 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 qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber of the court order by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.