Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-09638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas authorized an early subpoena seeking the Doe defendant’s name and address from Verizon Fios.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe from Verizon Fios and certain other identified internet-service providers; the providers and the Doe defendant are affected by the subpoena and notice requirements.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to subpoena Verizon Fios before the usual early case-management conference. The request sought information that could identify the defendant.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown a sufficient reason to serve the subpoena before that conference. It also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the responses.
Judge Kenneth Karas authorized the subpoena, subject to notice requirements if the provider is a cable operator and limiting use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-09638
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned the internet-protocol address 98.116.134.233.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena early. The order relied on decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York concerning early subpoenas seeking identifying information about an unnamed defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide the defendant’s true name and address and must include a copy of the order.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of 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 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 the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The scanned signature date is unclear; the date in the metadata header uses the supplied filing date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.