Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:23-cv-11218
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Stanton granted early subpoena access to identify the subscriber linked to an internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the name and address of the John Doe defendant from Spectrum and certain other identified internet service providers. The defendant may receive notice if Spectrum is a cable operator, and the disclosed information is limited to use in protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked the court for permission to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held their required early case meeting. The defendant was identified only as John Doe, associated with internet address 104.162.239.224.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown a sufficient reason, called “good cause,” to obtain the information. It allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Spectrum for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena other internet providers identified through that process.
Judge Louis Stanton also required notice to the defendant if Spectrum qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights described in its complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claim.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-11218
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 29, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The complaint identified the defendant as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 104.162.239.224. The requested subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet service provider.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena. The court granted permission for Strike 3 to serve Spectrum with a Rule 45 subpoena requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to be attached to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any 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), it was required to comply with the notice provision in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending the defendant a copy of the order.
Limits on the information
Strike 3 could use information disclosed in response to the subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The order concerned early discovery and identification of the defendant; it did not resolve the underlying claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.