Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-01728
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed early subpoenas to identify the defendant from an Internet address.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may obtain identifying information about John Doe from Spectrum and potentially other Internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the information may be used only for the purposes stated in the order.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe, associated with an Internet Protocol address. The company asked to subpoena Spectrum, the Internet service provider, before the parties held their required initial conference.
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 providers identified through those responses.
The information may be used only to protect and enforce Strike 3 Holdings’ rights in the complaint. Judge Philip M. Halpern also required any qualifying cable operator to notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-01728
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 20, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. A Rule 26(f) conference is an early meeting in which the parties generally discuss how the case will proceed. The proposed subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified as the Internet service provider, and sought the true name and address of the defendant associated with the Internet Protocol address listed in the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to obtain the information before the Rule 26(f) conference. The order cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions concerning subpoenas used to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Rule 45 governs subpoenas directed to people or entities that are not parties to the lawsuit. The subpoena must include a copy of the order.
The court also allowed Strike 3 Holdings to serve a similar Rule 45 subpoena on any other service provider identified in response as providing Internet services to one of the defendants. If Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator under federal law, it must comply with the federal notice requirement by sending the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings may use information produced in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint.
This was a discovery-related order permitting early identification of an unknown defendant; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.