Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-02197
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman allowed subpoenas to identify the defendant associated with an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant, Verizon Internet Services, and any other internet service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3’s request to identify an unnamed defendant associated with an internet address assigned by Verizon Internet Services.
Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required initial case-planning conference. The request sought the defendant’s true name and address from Verizon and, if identified, from other internet service providers.
Judge Nelson Roman found good cause and authorized the subpoenas. The order required certain notices if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-02197
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe defendant identified in the complaint by an internet-protocol address, 208.195.253.42. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The opinion does not state the underlying claims in detail.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Internet Services, the internet service provider identified in the order. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address and required Strike 3 to attach the order to the subpoena.
The order also allowed Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena. If Verizon qualified as a “cable operator” under federal law, it was required to notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order before disclosing personal identifying information. Strike 3 could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights stated in the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.