Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-10693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter authorized subpoenas to identify the defendant before the parties’ required discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant’s identifying information from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers. The defendant must receive notice if the applicable cable-privacy law requires it, and the plaintiff’s use of the information is limited to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, the plaintiff asked to subpoena an internet service provider before the parties held a required conference about discovery. The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause for doing so.
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address associated with the listed internet-protocol address. The plaintiff may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response. Any provider covered by the cable-privacy law must send the defendant a copy of the order, and the plaintiff may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.
Judge Andrew Carter issued the order on January 19, 2023, authorizing the early subpoenas and setting limits on use and notice.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-10693
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 19, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet-protocol address listed in the complaint.
Court’s Reasoning and Order
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order authorized the plaintiff to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.
The court also authorized the plaintiff to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order. The plaintiff may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on the internet service provider only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.
Disposition
The order authorized early third-party subpoenas based on a finding of good cause and imposed notice and use restrictions. Judge Andrew Carter issued the order on January 19, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.