Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 16, 2023

Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe

Judge
Jed Rakoff
Docket
1:23-cv-06480
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rakoff authorized early subpoenas to identify an unknown internet subscriber.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings LLC may obtain identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios and potentially other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is restricted to use in this lawsuit.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet protocol address, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties’ required early case conference. The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient reason for the early subpoena.

The order allows Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address. It also allows subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order.

The disclosed information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit. Judge Jed Rakoff’s order concerns discovery and identification of the defendant; it does not decide whether Strike 3’s underlying claims are valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-06480
Judge
Jed Rakoff
Date
Aug. 16, 2023

Background

Strike 3 Holdings LLC filed a lawsuit against John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 71.167.236.140. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” for serving an early subpoena on Verizon Fios. The order authorizes Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom the listed internet protocol address was assigned. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also authorizes Strike 3 to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as having provided internet services to one of the defendants.

If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the court-authorized disclosure.

Limit on disclosed information

Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint.

Effect of the order

This is a discovery order addressing early subpoenas and identification of an unknown defendant. It does not resolve the merits of Strike 3’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.