Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-11234
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an IP address, limiting use of the information.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s true name and address from Verizon Fios and other identified Internet service providers, subject to the order’s notice and use restrictions.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe concerns Strike 3’s request to subpoena Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management conference. The defendant was identified only as John Doe, a subscriber assigned a specified Internet Protocol address.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause and allowed it to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other Internet service providers identified through those responses.
Judge Philip M. Halpern required certain notification if Verizon Fios qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-11234
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 108.30.82.86. Strike 3 sought information from Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the Internet service provider.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Verizon Fios to provide the true name and address of the defendant associated with the specified Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing Internet services to one of the defendants.
Notice and limits on use
If Verizon Fios qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision as quoted in the order, disclosure of personal identifying information pursuant to a court order requires the subscriber to be notified by the person receiving the order. Verizon Fios could satisfy that requirement by sending a copy of the order to the defendant.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. This order concerns early discovery and identification of the defendant; the opinion does not decide the merits of Strike 3’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.