Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-04356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Carter allowed early subpoenas to identify an anonymous defendant from an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of the John Doe defendant from Spectrum and other identified internet-service providers. The John Doe defendant may receive notice if the applicable provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is restricted to the purposes stated in the complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held the usual meeting about managing the case. The defendant was identified in the complaint only as John Doe, associated with IP address 69.202.149.215.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to seek the defendant’s true name and address. It allowed the company to serve a subpoena requiring Spectrum to provide that information and to subpoena other internet-service providers identified through that process.
The order also required certain notice to the defendant if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in the complaint. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. granted permission for this early discovery but did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-04356
- Andrew Carter
- June 23, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.202.149.215. The proposed recipient was Spectrum, which the order calls the internet-service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” for early discovery. The order relied on decisions applying that standard to requests seeking identifying information about an otherwise unnamed defendant.
Order
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena. A Rule 45 subpoena is a legal demand for a third party to provide information or documents. The subpoena may require Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address, and Strike 3 Holdings must attach a copy of the order.
The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending a copy of the order to the defendant so the defendant is notified. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on the internet-service provider only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.
The order granted permission for early third-party discovery. It did not resolve the underlying claims against the defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.