Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-02190
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Koeltl allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant behind an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet-service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet protocol address. It asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their initial discovery meeting.
The court found good cause for early discovery and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The company could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
The order required certain notice if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint. Judge Koeltl issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-02190
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 74.101.135.20. Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference, which is an early meeting about the case and discovery.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” for the early subpoena. It allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena.
The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on any other 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), it was required to follow 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision, disclosure of personal identifying information could be made under a court order if the subscriber was notified of the order by the person to whom the order was directed. The order stated that Verizon Fios could satisfy this requirement by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Limits on Disclosure
Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.