Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-10541
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman granted leave to subpoena Verizon Fios for Doe’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Verizon Fios and certain other identified internet-service providers; John Doe may receive notice if the cable-operator disclosure rule applies.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held their required initial conference. The subpoena sought the name and address connected to the internet address identified in the complaint.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena requiring that information. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the responses. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Judge Nelson Roman issued the order on January 2, 2024. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, it must send Doe a copy of the order when disclosing personal identifying information under the applicable federal law.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-10541
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 2, 2024
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 defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 173.62.84.9. Strike 3 sought information from Verizon Fios, identified as the internet service provider, to learn the defendant’s true name and address.
Court’s analysis and order
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring it to provide the true name and address of the defendant to whom Verizon Fios assigned the internet protocol address identified in the complaint. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of 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), including sending a copy of the order to the defendant when disclosing personal identifying information under a court order.
Use restriction and disposition
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The court therefore granted Strike 3’s request for permission to serve the early third-party subpoena. The opinion does not state a ruling on the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.