Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- 1:24-cv-01713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, the court allowed an early subpoena to identify the defendant; the judge was not identified.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek identifying information about John Doe from Optimum Online and potentially other identified internet service providers. Optimum Online and any other subpoenaed provider may raise objections, and Optimum Online must notify the subscriber if the cable-operator disclosure rule applies.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 asked to subpoena Optimum Online before the parties held their required initial case conference. The opinion says Strike 3 showed good cause for seeking the defendant’s true name and address from the internet provider.
The court authorized Strike 3 to issue the subpoena and to subpoena another internet provider identified in the response. If Optimum Online qualifies as a cable operator, it must notify the subscriber by sending a copy of the order. Strike 3 may use the information only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint.
The order was dated March 26, 2024, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The judge was not identified in the opinion.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-01713
- Mar. 26, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Optimum Online before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). A third-party subpoena is a formal demand for information from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit. The opinion identifies the defendant as John Doe, a subscriber assigned internet protocol address 24.184.153.37.
Ruling
The court found that Strike 3 had shown “good cause” to subpoena Optimum Online. The court authorized Strike 3 to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Rule 45 seeking the defendant’s true name and address. Strike 3 must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena. The authorization does not prevent Optimum Online from raising objections to the subpoena.
The court also authorized Strike 3 to serve the same type of subpoena on any internet service provider identified in response to a 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 the disclosure requirements in 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), including notifying the subscriber by sending the subscriber a copy of the order.
Strike 3 may use information disclosed in response to the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights described in its complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 9. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.