Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-11214
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Failla allowed early subpoena discovery to identify the defendant through Verizon Fios.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Verizon Fios, and any other Internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked to identify John Doe, who was associated with an Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint. It asked to serve Verizon Fios before the parties held their required early case-management meeting.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for the early subpoena. The order allowed Strike 3 Holdings to ask Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address and to serve a similar subpoena on another Internet provider identified in a response.
The order limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. If Verizon Fios qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the defendant by sending a copy of the order. Judge Katherine Failla directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-11214
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoena was directed to Verizon Fios, identified in the order as the Internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of John Doe, the subscriber assigned the Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” for early discovery. It granted permission to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45, provided that Strike 3 Holdings attach a copy of the order. The order also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any 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), the order requires it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order, which serves as notice of the authorized disclosure. Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to a subpoena served on Verizon Fios only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 8. This order addressed early identification-related discovery; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.