Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-10727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant’s name and address from internet-service records.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and certain other internet-service providers; John Doe may receive notice in the circumstance described by the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet-protocol address. Strike 3 asked to serve Verizon Fios before the parties held the required early case-management conference.
The court found good cause for early discovery and allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process. Any information obtained could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint.
Judge Kenneth Karas also required notice to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and disclosed personal identifying information under the relevant federal statute. The order was dated January 18, 2023.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:22-cv-10727
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 18, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet-protocol address 108.21.105.212. Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference, which is the early conference required in civil litigation to discuss the case and discovery.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve Verizon Fios, identified as the internet-service provider. The court allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court directed it to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The order therefore required a copy of the order to be sent to the defendant in that circumstance.
Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Effect of the Order
This was an early-discovery order concerning subpoenas. It authorized Strike 3 to seek identifying information from internet-service providers; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.