Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 11, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:22-cv-10730
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman authorized a subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant before the parties’ required conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant associated with IP address 67.85.217.172, Optimum Online, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties held their required initial conference. The defendant was identified only by an internet address.

The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena Optimum Online for the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified in response.

The order required limits on using the information and, if applicable, required notice to the subscriber. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the clerk to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-10730
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Jan. 11, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings sought permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the required early meeting in a federal civil case to discuss how the case will proceed. The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 67.85.217.172.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to subpoena Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider. The order authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a Rule 45 subpoena—a formal demand for information issued in litigation—requiring Optimum Online to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena.

The order also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

Privacy and Use Limits

If Optimum Online qualified as a cable operator under the cited federal statute, it had to comply with the statute’s requirement to notify the subscriber by sending the defendant a copy of the order before disclosing personal identifying information. Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.

Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.