Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-03188
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Koeltl authorized a subpoena seeking Doe’s identity before the Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified in the caption as John Doe, whose internet address was listed as 71.105.206.126. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held the usual discovery-planning conference.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response. Any information obtained may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order.
Judge John Koeltl entered this discovery order. It does not decide whether the defendant is liable on the claims in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-03188
- John Koeltl
- May 3, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 71.105.206.126. Before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference, Strike 3 asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider identified in the order as the ISP. The opinion does not identify the defendant by name beyond the caption.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant so that the defendant is notified. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Effect of the Order
This is a discovery order that permits Strike 3 to seek identifying information about the Doe defendant. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or whether the defendant is liable. Judge John Koeltl issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.