Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-09593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant linked to a specified internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information about the John Doe defendant from Spectrum and certain other identified internet service providers, subject to the order’s limits and any required subscriber notice.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held their required initial planning conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet address 24.168.59.178.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to obtain the defendant’s true name and address from Spectrum. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the subpoena process.
The court authorized the subpoenas and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint. If Spectrum qualified as a cable operator, it had to notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order; Judge Briccetti issued the order on November 18, 2022.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-09593
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The complaint identified the defendant as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet address 24.168.59.178. The proposed subpoena was directed to Spectrum, which the order called the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve Spectrum with the subpoena. The order cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions addressing early subpoenas seeking identifying information about an unidentified defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 demanding the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena. The plaintiff could also serve the same kind of subpoena on another internet 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), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. Judge Vincent Briccetti entered the order on November 18, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.