Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:23-cv-02192
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge McMahon allowed a subpoena seeking John Doe’s name and address while keeping Doe anonymous.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address through a subpoena. John Doe receives notice and an opportunity to object and remains anonymous. Verizon Internet Services must attempt to identify Doe and submit any information to the court under seal.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings sued a John Doe subscriber associated with a listed internet address, alleging that Doe unlawfully downloaded adult movies. Strike 3 asked to identify Doe before the parties held their required initial conference.

The court found good cause for Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Internet Services. Verizon must try to identify Doe, send Doe the subpoena and order, and provide the information to the court under seal—not directly to Strike 3. The subpoena may seek Doe’s true name and address, but not a telephone number or email address.

Judge McMahon also allowed Doe to remain anonymous because of the sensitive allegations. Doe and Verizon may object to or ask the court to cancel the subpoena within the specified deadlines, and the identifying information may be used only to litigate this case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-02192
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
May 1, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a John Doe subscriber assigned internet protocol address 108.6.80.47. The opinion refers to Strike 3’s allegations that Doe unlawfully downloaded adult movies. Because Doe’s identity was not publicly known, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve Verizon Internet Services, the internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference.

Court’s Decision

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking Doe’s true name and address. The subpoena may not seek Doe’s telephone number or email address, and Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order.

Within seven days after receiving the subpoena, Verizon must make a reasonable effort to identify the John Doe sued and provide Doe with copies of the subpoena and order. If Verizon cannot identify the user of the internet protocol address with reasonable technical certainty, it must notify Strike 3’s counsel in writing.

Verizon and the potential defendant each have 21 days to ask the court to cancel the subpoena or otherwise object. If there is no such motion, Verizon must provide the requested information to the court—not directly to Strike 3—within 21 days after notifying Doe. The submission must be under seal and outside the presence of the other side. The court may then disclose the information to Strike 3’s counsel, without disclosing any email address or telephone number. Strike 3 may use the disclosed information only to litigate this case.

Anonymity and Ruling

The court found good cause for Doe to proceed anonymously because of the sensitive allegations. It ordered that Doe’s true name and other identifying information may not be publicly disclosed as Doe’s identity in this lawsuit unless the court later orders otherwise. Strike 3 and Verizon were also prohibited from publicly disclosing Doe’s personal identifying information without a further court order.

Judge Colleen McMahon therefore granted Strike 3 permission to serve the limited third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference and ordered safeguards for Doe’s notice, opportunity to object, and anonymity.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.