Strike 3 holdings, LLc v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-00648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Judge Karas allowed Strike 3 to subpoena internet providers for Doe’s name and address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Optimum Online and certain other identified service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the cable-operator disclosure rule applies, and the providers must comply with the order’s subpoena and notice requirements.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to serve a subpoena before the parties held their required initial discovery conference. The subpoena sought information identifying John Doe, whose internet address was listed in the complaint.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause to subpoena Optimum Online, the internet service provider, for Doe’s true name and address. Strike 3 could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process.
Judge Kenneth Karas authorized the subpoenas and required Strike 3 to attach the order. If Optimum Online is legally a cable operator, it must notify Doe by sending Doe a copy of the order. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 holdings, LLc v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-00648
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 16, 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 defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 68.197.138.248. The order refers to Optimum Online as the internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The order authorized a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. It also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same kind of subpoena on any service provider identified in response to a subpoena as providing internet services to a defendant.
The order further addressed federal privacy rules for cable operators. If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of this order to provide notice of the court-authorized disclosure.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth Karas granted Strike 3 permission to serve the authorized Rule 45 subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to any subpoena. The information obtained through a subpoena served on Optimum Online may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in Strike 3’s complaint. The order does 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.