Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-09639
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas allowed Strike 3 to subpoena internet providers for Doe’s identifying information before the required scheduling conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identifying information of John Doe, the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 67.81.217.203, from Optimum Online and potentially other identified internet service providers.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 asked for permission to subpoena the internet provider connected to the internet address listed in its complaint before the parties held a required scheduling conference.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to serve the subpoena on Optimum Online. The subpoena may seek the defendant’s true name and address. It may also be served on another internet provider identified in response to the first subpoena.
The order requires certain notice if the provider is a cable operator and limits use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. Judge Kenneth Karas granted the requested permission.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-09639
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The subpoena sought information identifying the defendant, who the caption describes as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 67.81.217.203.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider. The order cites Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning subpoenas used to identify an unnamed defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, requiring the provider to give Strike 3 the defendant’s true name and address. 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 service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet service to one of the defendants.
If Optimum Online 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) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant as notice of the disclosure. Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on the provider only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. Judge Kenneth Karas therefore granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the early third-party subpoena.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.