Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Victor Marrero
- 1:23-cv-11216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Marrero authorized subpoenas to identify the defendant before a Rule 26(f) conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the defendant's identifying information from Verizon Fios and potentially another identified internet service provider. The unidentified subscriber may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information may be used only for the purposes stated in the complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a person identified as John Doe and asked to learn that person's identity from the internet provider connected to a specified internet address.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to obtain this information before the parties held their required early case-management conference. It allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Fios for the defendant's true name and address and to subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
Judge Victor Marrero also required notice to the subscriber if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited Strike 3's use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-11216
- Victor Marrero
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified in the caption as “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.160.246.20.” Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties' Rule 26(f) conference, an early conference about managing a federal lawsuit.
Court's Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios, the internet service provider identified in the order. The order relied on decisions addressing early subpoenas seeking the identity of an unknown defendant.
Order
The court granted Strike 3 permission to serve Verizon Fios with a Rule 45 subpoena, a formal demand for information issued to a nonparty. The subpoena may require Verizon Fios to provide Strike 3 with the true name and address of the defendant to whom the specified internet address was assigned. 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 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. That statute permits disclosure of personal identifying information when a court order authorizes disclosure and the subscriber is notified. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Disposition and Significance
The order granted the requested permission to conduct limited early discovery aimed at identifying the unknown defendant. It did not decide whether Strike 3's underlying claims were valid or whether the defendant was liable. The ruling was entered by Judge Victor Marrero on February 6, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.