Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-01716
- 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, Doe, Verizon Fios, and any later-identified internet service provider subject to a subpoena.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued Doe, identified in the complaint by an internet address. The court considered Strike 3’s request to subpoena the internet service provider before the parties’ required planning conference.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena. It authorized Strike 3 to ask Verizon Fios for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena later-identified internet providers in the same way.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also required notice to the defendant if the provider is a cable operator and limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3’s rights in the complaint.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-01716
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 20, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Verizon Fios before the parties held the conference ordinarily required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant was identified in the complaint as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 96.248.34.187.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to obtain information before the Rule 26(f) conference. The opinion cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions addressing early subpoenas seeking to identify an unknown defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Verizon Fios with a subpoena under Rule 45 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 the same type of subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.
If Verizon Fios qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the provider must comply with the notice requirement in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. Strike 3 may use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.