Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Louis Stanton
- 1:24-cv-01695
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Stanton allowed subpoenas to identify the defendant before the usual discovery conference.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant, Optimum Online, and any other internet service provider identified through the authorized subpoena process.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified by an internet address, and asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held their usual discovery-planning conference. The subpoena would be directed to Optimum Online, the internet service provider.
The court found that Strike 3 had shown good cause. It authorized Strike 3 to subpoena Optimum Online for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena another internet service provider identified in response to the first subpoena.
The order also required certain notice if the provider qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to enforcing Strike 3’s rights in this case. Judge Louis Stanton issued the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-01695
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, the usual meeting in which parties discuss initial discovery. The proposed subpoena would be served on Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider associated with the internet address assigned to the defendant in the complaint.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had established “good cause” for early discovery. It authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 seeking 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 the same kind of subpoena on any other internet service provider identified in response to the Optimum Online subpoena as providing internet services to the defendant.
If Optimum Online qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order stated that it must comply 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. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce its rights described in the complaint.
Effect of the order
This was a discovery order concerning how Strike 3 could identify the anonymous defendant. The order did 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.