Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-10475
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge McMahon allowed a subpoena seeking Doe’s name and address from Verizon before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the John Doe defendant, and Verizon Internet Services.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, the plaintiff asked to serve Verizon Internet Services with a subpoena before the parties held the required discovery conference. The court found good cause for the early subpoena.
The court allowed the subpoena to seek the defendant’s true name and address, but not a telephone number or email address. Verizon must notify the John Doe defendant, who may object, and the identifying information must be submitted to the court under seal. The defendant may remain anonymous publicly, and the plaintiff may use any disclosed information only to litigate this case.
Judge Colleen McMahon granted the motion for leave to serve the third-party subpoena and ordered restrictions protecting the defendant’s identity.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-10475
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 4, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve Verizon Internet Services, the internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties’ required conference about discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The subpoena sought information identifying the John Doe subscriber assigned the internet-protocol address listed in the complaint.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena early. It allowed the plaintiff to serve Verizon with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The subpoena may not seek the defendant’s telephone number or email address, and it must include a copy of the order.
Within seven days after receiving each subpoena, Verizon must reasonably try to identify the John Doe defendant and provide that person with copies of the subpoena and order. If Verizon cannot identify the user of the internet-protocol address with reasonable technical certainty, it must notify the plaintiff’s counsel in writing.
Verizon and the potential defendant each have 21 days to object to or ask the court to cancel the subpoena. If there is no such objection, Verizon must submit the requested information to the court under seal rather than directly to the plaintiff. The court will decide whether to disclose the information to the plaintiff’s counsel, and any disclosure may not include an email address or telephone number. The plaintiff may use the disclosed information only to litigate this case.
Anonymity Protection
Because the allegations concern the alleged unlawful downloading of adult movies, the court found good cause for the defendant to proceed anonymously. Until a further court order, the defendant’s true name and other identifying information may not be publicly disclosed as the identity of the defendant in this lawsuit. The plaintiff and Verizon are also prohibited from publicly disclosing that information without another court order.
Disposition
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings’ motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference, subject to the stated notice, objection, sealing, and identity-protection requirements.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.