Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-10474
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge P. Castel allowed subpoenas to identify the unknown defendant before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios and certain other internet-service providers; John Doe may receive notice if the cable-privacy statute applies.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to learn Doe’s identity from Verizon Fios. The request concerned obtaining information before the parties held the usual initial discovery conference.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to seek the information early. It authorized the company to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking Doe’s true name and address, and allowed similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified through those responses.
The order also required notice to Doe if federal cable-privacy law applied and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the lawsuit. Judge P. Castel issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-10474
- P. Castel
- Dec. 19, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet protocol address 96.232.126.109. The order does not identify Doe’s name or address.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” for early discovery. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios 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 court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any other internet-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), the order required compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of identifying subscriber information under a court order if the subscriber is notified. The order further limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through the Verizon Fios subpoena to protecting and enforcing its rights stated in the complaint.
Disposition and effect
The court authorized the requested early subpoenas. The order did not state that any subpoena had already been served or that Verizon Fios had disclosed information. It concerned discovery and did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe. Judge P. Castel issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.