Strike 3 Holdings, LLc v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-00651
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Halpern allowed an early subpoena seeking Doe’s name and address from Spectrum.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Spectrum and potentially other identified internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the cable-privacy provision applies, and the disclosed information may be used only for the purposes stated in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an Internet Protocol address. It asked to contact Spectrum, the internet service provider, before the parties’ required early case conference.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned that address. The order also allowed subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the process.
Judge Halpern required notice to John Doe if federal cable-privacy law applied and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLc v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-00651
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 12, 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 subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with Internet Protocol address 69.206.208.206.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” to serve the subpoena early. It authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45, requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court 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 may be made under a court order if the subscriber is notified. The order therefore required Strike 3 Holdings to send John Doe a copy of the order in that circumstance.
Limits on disclosure
Strike 3 Holdings may use information disclosed in response to the Rule 45 subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
Disposition and significance
The court granted Strike 3 Holdings permission to conduct this early discovery. The order addressed the subpoena and disclosure process; it did not decide the underlying claims against John Doe.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.