Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Victor Marrero
- 1:22-cv-10725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Marrero authorized subpoenas to identify John Doe from an IP address before a Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe from Spectrum and, if applicable, another identified internet service provider. John Doe may receive notice if Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked for permission to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, before the parties held a required case-planning conference. The defendant was identified in the complaint by the IP address 74.64.116.160.
The court found good cause and authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Spectrum for John Doe’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet provider identified through the process. Any information obtained could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. If Spectrum qualified as a cable operator, it also had to send John Doe a copy of the order.
Judge Victor Marrero entered the order on January 12, 2023. The order allowed the early subpoenas but did not itself identify John Doe or decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-10725
- Victor Marrero
- Jan. 12, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned IP address 74.64.116.160. The requested subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the true name and address of the defendant associated with the IP address listed in the complaint. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on another service provider if information produced in response identified that provider 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), including by sending John Doe a copy of the order. Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Disposition and Significance
The order granted Strike 3 permission to pursue early third-party subpoenas for identifying information. It did not resolve the underlying claims, determine John Doe’s identity, or decide whether Strike 3 would ultimately prevail. The ruling is a discovery-related procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.