Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-04366
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas authorized a subpoena to Verizon Fios for Doe’s identifying information before the discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other service provider identified in response to the authorized subpoenas.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the name and address of the person assigned the internet address identified in the complaint. It requested permission to do so before the parties held their required discovery conference.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason—called “good cause”—for obtaining the information at this early stage. The court also allowed subpoenas to other internet service providers identified in response to the first subpoena.
The order authorized the subpoenas and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. Judge Kenneth Karas also required notification to the defendant if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator under federal law.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-04366
- Kenneth Karas
- July 11, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, which the order called the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the internet address listed in the complaint.
Court’s Decision
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and required that a copy of the order accompany the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it was required to comply with the federal disclosure provision cited in the order by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.