Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-08790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s name and address before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Spectrum and potentially other identified internet service providers; John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, before the parties held the usual discovery conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, associated with a specified internet address.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause and allowed it to serve a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.
Judge Andrew Carter ordered additional notice if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-08790
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The complaint identified the defendant as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet protocol address 74.64.249.163. The proposed initial subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorized a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The order also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on another service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it was required to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the authorized disclosure.
Disposition
Judge Andrew Carter granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve the authorized third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. The information obtained from a subpoena served on the internet service provider could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. The order did not resolve the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.