Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-03189
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Figueredo authorized subpoenas to identify the defendant before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Spectrum and potentially other identified internet service providers; John Doe may receive notice if the federal cable-privacy law applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet provider, before the required early-case conference. The plaintiff said it needed the provider’s records to learn the defendant’s name and address.
The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause and authorized a subpoena seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned that internet address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those records.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered that any information obtained be used only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint, and required notice to the defendant if federal cable-privacy law applied.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-03189
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 4, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider, before the parties held the conference generally required at the start of a federal civil case. The defendant was captioned as John Doe and identified in the complaint by the internet address 74.72.25.42.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to seek the information before that conference. It authorized the plaintiff to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena.
The order also authorized the plaintiff 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 federal law, it was required to comply with the law governing disclosure of subscriber-identifying information by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. The plaintiff could use information obtained from the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
Judge Valerie Figueredo entered the order on May 4, 2023, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 7.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.