Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-08800
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed a subpoena to identify the defendant from Optimum Online.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Optimum Online and other identified internet service providers. The defendant, John Doe, is entitled to notice if the cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online before the parties held their required early case meeting. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person assigned the internet address listed in the complaint.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason—called “good cause”—for the early subpoena. It allowed the company to serve Optimum Online and, if another internet provider was identified, that provider as well.
Judge Halpern also limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. If Optimum Online qualified as a cable operator, it had to send the defendant a copy of the order as notice.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-08800
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The proposed subpoena was directed to Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant assigned the internet protocol address listed in the complaint: 68.193.220.94.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena early. It therefore authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, provided that a copy of the order was attached.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Optimum Online qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice.
Limit on Information
Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The order addressed early discovery and identification of the defendant; it did not state a ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.