Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 26, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:23-cv-11232
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed early subpoenas to identify Doe, subject to notice and use limits.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Spectrum and certain other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is restricted to enforcing the rights described in the complaint.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an Internet Protocol address. Strike 3 asked to subpoena Spectrum, the internet service provider, before the parties held their required initial discovery meeting.

The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking Doe’s true name and address. The court also allowed subpoenas to other internet service providers identified through that process.

Judge Halpern required a copy of the order to accompany the subpoenas and, if Spectrum qualified as a cable operator, to be sent to Doe as notice. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-11232
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Jan. 26, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is the parties’ required early meeting about discovery. The defendant is identified in the case caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 67.243.103.226.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to serve Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider. The court allowed Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 to serve the same type of Rule 45 subpoena on any other internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

Notice and use restrictions

If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order requires compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending a copy of the order to the defendant as notice. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.

Disposition

The order permits the requested early third-party subpoenas. The opinion does not separately state that the motion was “granted,” but its provisions authorize the requested discovery.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.