Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-08797
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed early subpoena discovery to identify the anonymous defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the anonymous defendant identified as John Doe, Optimum Online, and any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, whose internet provider had assigned the listed internet address. Strike 3 asked to serve Optimum Online before the parties held their required early case-management conference.
The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to issue a subpoena requiring Optimum Online to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet provider identified in response, if applicable.
The order limits use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the lawsuit. Judge Nelson S. Roman also required notice to the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applies and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-08797
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 4, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued “John Doe,” identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 68.196.0.68. Strike 3 filed a motion seeking permission to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to obtain identifying information before that conference. The order authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may require Optimum Online to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order.
The order also permits Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order states that it must follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision, disclosure of personal identifying information may be made under a court order if the subscriber is notified by the person receiving the order. The order therefore requires a copy of the order to be sent to the defendant in that circumstance.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.