Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 18, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:22-cv-08798
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas authorized a subpoena seeking the defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios before a Rule 26(f) conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, whom the caption identifies by an internet-protocol address. The case is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 7:22-cv-08798-KMK.

Strike 3 asked for permission to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held the required meeting about managing the case. The subpoena seeks the defendant’s true name and address and may also be served on another internet provider identified in response to a subpoena.

The court found good cause and authorized the subpoenas, subject to conditions on notice and use of the information. Judge Karas limited the information’s use to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint.

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-08798
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Jan. 18, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 72.89.239.98. Verizon Fios is identified as the internet service provider.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide Strike 3 with the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

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

Conditions on Disclosure and Use

If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under the cited federal statute, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order when disclosing personal identifying information under the court-authorized subpoena. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

This is a discovery order authorizing early identification of the defendant. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.

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.