Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-03196
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant, Verizon Fios, and any other internet-service provider identified through the subpoena process.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required initial meeting. The defendant was identified only as John Doe, associated with a specified internet address.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to obtain the information. It allowed subpoenas seeking the defendant’s true name and address from Verizon Fios and, if identified, other internet-service providers. The information could be used only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint. The order also required notice to the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applied.
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order on May 3, 2023. The order concerns early information-gathering and does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-03196
- Philip Halpern
- May 3, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. A subpoena is a legal demand for information from a person or organization that is not a party to the case. The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, the subscriber assigned the internet-protocol address 100.33.114.167.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The order permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena.
The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on another internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator under federal law, it must comply with the federal cable-privacy provision concerning disclosure of subscriber-identifying information. That provision allows disclosure under a court order when the subscriber is notified of the order. The court therefore ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the defendant in that circumstance.
Limits on Use of Information
Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Effect of the Order
This is an early discovery order. It authorizes subpoenas to identify the defendant but does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.