Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 11, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:24-cv-02343
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas authorized subpoenas to identify the defendant behind an internet address before the required discovery conference.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the identity and address of John Doe through subpoenas to Spectrum and certain other internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the statutory cable-operator provision applies.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, the plaintiff asked to subpoena Spectrum before the parties held the discovery conference required by the federal rules. The defendant was identified in the complaint by an internet address.

The court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause. It authorized a subpoena seeking the defendant’s true name and address and allowed similar subpoenas to other internet providers identified through the responses.

Judge Karas also required certain notice if Spectrum qualified as a cable operator and limited use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing the plaintiff’s rights described in the complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-02343
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Apr. 11, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, whose identity was described through an internet protocol address, 66.65.62.26. The plaintiff moved for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the discovery conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).

Ruling

The court found that the plaintiff had established good cause to serve the subpoena. It authorized the plaintiff to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff must attach a copy of the order to the subpoena.

The court also authorized the plaintiff 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.

Notice and Limits on Use

If Spectrum qualified as a cable operator under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the court stated that Spectrum must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B). Under that provision as quoted in the order, a cable operator may disclose personal identifying information under a court order if the subscriber is notified of the order by the person receiving it. The order directed that a copy be sent to the defendant.

The plaintiff may use information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on Spectrum only to protect and enforce the rights asserted in the complaint.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.