Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-01484
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter allowed early subpoenas to identify the internet subscriber linked to the listed IP address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios and certain other internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet protocol address. The plaintiff asked to contact the internet service provider before the parties held their required initial conference.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to obtain information identifying the defendant. The order allowed a subpoena to Verizon Fios seeking the defendant’s true name and address.
Judge Carter also allowed subpoenas to other identified internet providers under the same conditions. Any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce the plaintiff’s rights in this lawsuit, and additional notice requirements apply if Verizon Fios is a cable operator.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-01484
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 71.251.1.129. The plaintiff moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, the identified internet service provider. The order relied on decisions addressing subpoenas used to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may request the true name and address of the defendant assigned the Internet Protocol address identified in the complaint, and the plaintiff must attach a copy of the order.
The plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena on another service provider identified in response to a subpoena 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 a copy of the order to the defendant. The plaintiff may use information obtained from the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.