Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:24-cv-00640
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Rakoff allowed early subpoena discovery to identify the defendant linked to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s identifying information from Spectrum and other identified internet-service providers. John Doe 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 order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address. The company asked to obtain information from Spectrum before the parties held their required early case-management meeting.
The court found good cause and allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. The court also allowed subpoenas to other internet-service providers identified through the responses, and required the provider to return the information within 21 days.
The order limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint. Judge Jed S. Rakoff also required additional notice to the defendant if the provider qualified as a cable operator under federal law.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-00640
- Jed Rakoff
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet-service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant assigned the internet-protocol address listed in the complaint: 69.201.165.105.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown “good cause” for early discovery. It allowed the company to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45, provided that Strike 3 Holdings attach a copy of the order. The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any internet-service provider identified in a subpoena response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
Spectrum was ordered to return the requested information to Strike 3 Holdings within 21 days of the order. If Spectrum qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including sending a copy of the order to the defendant as notice of the authorized disclosure.
Limits on disclosed information
The court limited Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through a Rule 45 subpoena served on the internet-service provider to protecting and enforcing the rights stated in the complaint. Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered the order for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.