Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-00641
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Woods authorized early discovery, allowing a subpoena for the subscriber’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC received permission to seek the subscriber’s identifying information. John Doe, the subscriber associated with the specified Internet Protocol address, and Spectrum received notice and opportunities to object to or challenge the subpoena. The order also restricted disclosure of any information produced.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by the Internet Protocol address 74.71.172.12, and asked to obtain information identifying the subscriber before the parties’ required initial conference.
The court found good cause for early discovery despite Strike 3’s request being made without notice to the defendant. It allowed Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking the subscriber’s name and address, subject to notice and deadlines for objections.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Strike 3’s motion. The order limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint and did not decide the merits of any later challenge to the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-00641
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 15, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to seek discovery before the parties held the conference generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested discovery was an early subpoena to Spectrum seeking the name and address of the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 74.71.172.12. The request was made without first giving notice to the defendant.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) generally bars discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference unless a court authorizes it. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard, with especially careful review because Strike 3 sought both early discovery and an order without notice.
The court stated that Strike 3’s argument relied on a test used in cases involving motions to cancel subpoenas in order to protect a person’s anonymity. But the court emphasized that no motion to cancel the subpoena was before it and that the order did not decide the merits of any later motion to cancel or otherwise challenge the subpoena.
Order and practical effect
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Strike 3’s motion for permission to serve the third-party subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order provided that:
- Strike 3 could serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the name and address of the subscriber associated with the specified Internet Protocol address, and counsel had to attach the order. - Within seven days after service, Spectrum had to make a reasonable attempt to identify the subscriber and provide the subscriber with the subpoena and the order. If Spectrum could not identify the subscriber with a reasonable degree of technical certainty, it had to notify Strike 3’s counsel. - Spectrum had 21 days after service to move to cancel or otherwise object to the subpoena. The identified subscriber had 14 days after receiving the subpoena from Spectrum to do the same. - If no objection or motion to cancel was filed, Spectrum had to provide the requested information within 21 days after notifying the subscriber. - Strike 3 could use the information only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint. The information could not be disclosed to anyone other than Strike 3 and its counsel without further court permission.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.