Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

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 Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider associated with the IP address listed in the complaint for John Doe.

Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established good cause to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 had to attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

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

If Optimum Online qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision, disclosure of personal identifying information pursuant to a court order requires the subscriber to be notified of the order by the person receiving it. The order therefore required the provider to send a copy of the order to the defendant.

Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. Judge Kenneth Karas issued this discovery order without deciding the underlying claims against John Doe.