Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-07548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties’ required initial conference to identify John Doe.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s true name and address from Optimum Online and potentially other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider is a cable operator, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing the rights described in Strike 3’s complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3’s request to learn the identity of the subscriber assigned the internet address listed in the complaint. The opinion does not describe the underlying claim.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to obtain this information before the parties’ required initial conference. It authorized Strike 3 to send Optimum Online a subpoena demanding John Doe’s true name and address, and allowed similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified in the response.
The order also required notice to John Doe if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited Strike 3’s use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in its complaint. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the order on September 7, 2023.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-07548
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena sought information from Optimum Online about the subscriber assigned the internet address 69.118.168.151, identified in the complaint as John Doe. The opinion does not state the underlying claim or explain the allegations in the complaint.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring the provider to disclose the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The order also authorizes Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on another service provider if a response identifies that provider as supplying internet services to one of the defendants.
Notice and Use Limits
If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending John Doe a copy of the order. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Disposition
The court entered the order authorizing the early third-party subpoena. The opinion does not separately state that the motion was “granted”; it states the authorization and related conditions described above.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.