Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-09594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Briccetti allowed early subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to the listed internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe defendant associated with the listed internet protocol address, Optimum Online, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoena process.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the plaintiff asked to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause to seek the subscriber’s true name and address for the internet address identified in the complaint.
The order allows the plaintiff to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online and, if necessary, on other internet service providers identified through that process. The plaintiff must attach the order to each subpoena. If Optimum Online is a cable operator, it must notify the subscriber by sending the subscriber a copy of the order.
The plaintiff may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint. Judge Vincent Briccetti entered the order on November 18, 2022; the order did not decide whether the plaintiff’s underlying claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-09594
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, described as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 75.99.246.226. The plaintiff moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Ruling
The court found that the plaintiff had established “good cause” to serve Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider. The court authorized the plaintiff to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Optimum Online to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized the plaintiff to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
Subscriber notice and limits
If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. That provision allows disclosure of personal identifying information when a court order authorizes the disclosure and the subscriber is notified.
The plaintiff may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Optimum Online only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint. The order addresses early discovery and identification of the defendant; it does not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.