Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-04725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Woods granted early discovery, allowing a subpoena to identify the subscriber linked to the listed IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain early discovery from Spectrum about the subscriber assigned IP address 69.206.163.204. Spectrum and the identified subscriber received specified opportunities to object, and the disclosed information is subject to use and nondisclosure limits.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned IP address 69.206.163.204. The plaintiff asked to serve a subpoena on Spectrum to obtain that subscriber’s name and address before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court explained that early discovery requires a court order and must satisfy a reasonableness and good-cause standard. Because the plaintiff sought the discovery without first notifying the other side, the court applied especially careful review. The court also said it was not deciding the merits of any future challenge to the subpoena.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve the early subpoena. Spectrum must try to identify and notify the subscriber, and both Spectrum and the subscriber may object within specified deadlines. Unless an objection is filed, Spectrum must provide the requested information, which the plaintiff may use only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint and may not disclose further without court permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-04725
- Gregory Woods
- June 30, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, whom the complaint identifies as the subscriber assigned IP address 69.206.163.204. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve Spectrum with a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena seeks the name and address of the subscriber associated with that IP address.
Legal standard
Rule 26(d) generally bars a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless a court authorizes early discovery. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with particularly careful review because Strike 3 sought both expedited discovery and an order without first giving notice to the opposing party. The court noted that Strike 3’s argument followed a test used in cases involving motions to protect a person’s anonymity, but emphasized that no motion to quash the subpoena was before it. The order therefore does not decide the merits of any later motion to quash.
Ruling and subpoena conditions
The court found that Strike 3 met the reasonableness and good-cause standard, including the heightened review applicable to the request made without notice. It therefore granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference.
The court ordered that:
- Strike 3 may serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the name and address of the subscriber identified by IP address 69.206.163.204. Strike 3’s counsel must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
- Within seven days after the subpoena is served, Spectrum must reasonably attempt to identify the subscriber and provide the subscriber with the subpoena and the order. If Spectrum cannot identify the subscriber to a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3’s counsel.
- Spectrum may move to quash or otherwise object within 21 days after the subpoena’s service date. The identified subscriber may do so within 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Spectrum.
- If no motion to quash or other objection is filed, Spectrum must produce the requested information to Strike 3 within 21 days after notifying the subscriber.
- Strike 3 may use the disclosed information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The information may not be disclosed to anyone other than Strike 3 and its counsel without further court permission.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.