Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06616
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for Doe's identifying information before the discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any service provider identified through the authorized subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the required discovery conference. The defendant was identified in the case by an internet-protocol address and the name John Doe.
The court found good cause for early discovery and allowed Strike 3 to use a subpoena to seek the defendant's true name and address from Verizon Fios. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet-service provider identified through that process.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3's rights in the complaint. If Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator, it also had to notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order. Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-06616
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties' conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 98.113.160.40. Strike 3 sought information from Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the internet-service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause for early discovery. It allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant's true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another 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 federal law, it had to comply with the law allowing disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Limits on Disclosure
Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint. The order addressed early discovery and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.