Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 23, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:24-cv-00652
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Roman authorized subpoenas to identify the subscriber linked to the listed internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified John Doe subscriber assigned internet protocol address 69.126.72.202, Optimum Online, and any other service provider identified through the authorized subpoena process.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unidentified defendant, called John Doe, whose internet provider had assigned the listed internet address. Strike 3 asked to obtain the defendant’s identifying information before the parties held their required early case-management conference.

The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause and allowed it to subpoena Optimum Online for the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 may also subpoena another internet-service provider identified through that process. If the provider is a cable operator, it must send the defendant a copy of the court’s order before disclosing identifying information.

The order limits Strike 3’s use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the rights asserted in its complaint. Judge Nelson Roman issued the order on February 23, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-00652
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Feb. 23, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. The defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 69.126.72.202. The proposed subpoena was directed to Optimum Online, identified in the order as the internet service provider.

Court’s Analysis and Order

The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court therefore authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response to the first subpoena as providing internet services to one of the defendants. 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 the order before disclosing personal identifying information.

Restriction and Disposition

Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in its complaint. The order authorizes the requested early third-party discovery; the opinion text does not separately state that the motion was “granted” using that exact word. Judge Nelson Roman issued the order on February 23, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.