Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-06622
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held their required planning conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint only as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet address 74.108.125.188.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and allowed it to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
Judge Nelson S. Roman required notice to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-06622
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, the meeting at which litigants ordinarily discuss the case and prepare a discovery plan. The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 74.108.125.188. Strike 3 Holdings sought information from Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other 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), it had to comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Disposition
The order allowed the requested early third-party discovery. It did not decide the merits of the claims described in the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.