Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-08787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Koeltl allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, RCN, and any other internet-service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a person identified as John Doe, associated with internet address 65.78.22.40. Strike 3 asked to contact internet-service providers before the parties held their initial required meeting.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient reason to seek this information early. It authorized subpoenas to RCN and any other identified internet-service provider for the defendant’s true name and address.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit. Judge John Koeltl also required certain notice procedures if a provider qualified as a cable operator.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-08787
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 65.78.22.40. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a subpoena on a third party before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The order identifies RCN as the internet-service provider to receive the subpoena.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause”—a sufficient reason—for serving the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cited decisions recognizing that basis for early subpoenas seeking information about an unidentified defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve RCN 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 subpoenas to any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
If the provider qualifies as a “cable operator” under federal law, it must send the defendant a copy of the order when disclosing the identifying information. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.