Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-10692
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Koeltl authorized subpoenas to identify the defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Spectrum, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court to identify John Doe, a defendant associated with a specified internet address, before the parties held their required initial conference.
The order found good cause for Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, and obtain the defendant’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through that process.
The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in its complaint and required notice to the defendant in certain circumstances. Judge Koeltl entered the order authorizing these subpoenas.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-10692
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 6, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and concerned the subscriber assigned the internet protocol address 72.226.116.116.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to seek early discovery. The order relied on Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning subpoenas used to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending a copy of the order to the defendant so the defendant is notified of the court-authorized disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to 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.