Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-02193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Gardephe allowed a subpoena seeking the defendant’s identifying information before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum and potentially another identified Internet service provider. John Doe may receive notice if the cable-operator provision applies, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 asked to obtain the defendant’s name and address from Spectrum before the parties held their required discovery conference.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena. It also allowed Strike 3 to subpoena another Internet service provider identified through the response, if applicable.
Judge Gardephe ordered that any disclosed information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. If Spectrum qualified as a cable operator, it also had to send John Doe a copy of the order when notifying the defendant of the disclosure.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-02193
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 11, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the Internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of John Doe, the defendant associated with the Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The order authorized Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena, which is a formal demand for information issued to a nonparty, and required Strike 3 to attach a copy of the order. The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any other Internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing Internet service to one of the defendants.
If Spectrum 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, the provider could disclose personal identifying information pursuant to a court order if the subscriber was notified of the order by the person to whom the order was directed. The order therefore required Spectrum to send John Doe a copy of the order if that condition applied.
Disposition
The court allowed Strike 3 to serve the specified third-party subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. It limited Strike 3’s use of information obtained through a subpoena served on Spectrum to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.