Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-04774
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed early subpoenas to identify an unknown defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum and other identified internet-service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, 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 caption by an internet address assigned by an internet service provider. The opinion addresses only Strike 3’s request to obtain information identifying the defendant.
The court found good cause to allow Strike 3 to subpoena Spectrum before the parties’ required initial conference. The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address, and similar subpoenas may be served on other internet-service providers identified in the process.
Judge Kenneth Karas ordered that any disclosed information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in the complaint. If the provider is a cable operator, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-04774
- Kenneth Karas
- July 14, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet protocol address 69.206.12.182. The requested subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to obtain identifying information before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cites Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning early subpoenas to identify an unnamed defendant.
Order
The court granted Strike 3 permission to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. 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.
If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant as notice of the disclosure. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on the provider only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.
The order concerns discovery needed to identify the defendant. It does not decide the merits of Strike 3’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.