Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-00812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Briccetti found good cause and permitted early subpoenas to identify the defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other service provider identified through the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, who was identified in the complaint by an internet protocol address. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required initial discovery meeting.
The court found good cause for early discovery and allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through that process.
The order limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights described in the complaint. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also required a copy of the order to be sent to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator under federal law.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-00812
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 13, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 72.89.239.246. Strike 3 sought information from Verizon Fios, described in the order as the internet-service provider, to identify the defendant.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 to serve a Rule 45 subpoena, in the same manner, on any 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 order required compliance with 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 stated that notification would occur by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Limits on Disclosure
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued the order on February 13, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.