Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-10728
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern authorized subpoenas to identify the defendant before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may subpoena Spectrum and certain subsequently identified internet service providers for the defendant’s name and address. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the required discovery conference. The subpoena sought the name and address of the person assigned the internet address identified in the complaint.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena requiring that information. The company could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
Judge Halpern ordered notice to the defendant if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-10728
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena would be directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet service provider, and would seek the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet protocol address listed in the complaint.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to obtain the information before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 and required the company to attach a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings 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.
If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. The court further restricted Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through the subpoena to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint.
Disposition and Significance
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve the authorized third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. This was a discovery order identifying the defendant; it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.