Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:24-cv-03220
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern authorized an early subpoena to identify the defendant from an assigned internet address.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC; John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 24.161.44.183; Spectrum; and any other service provider identified in response to a subpoena.

What happened

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked for permission to serve a subpoena on Spectrum before the parties held the conference normally required by Rule 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption as John Doe, the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 24.161.44.183.

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for the early subpoena. The subpoena may require Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. The plaintiff may also subpoena another internet service provider identified in response to a subpoena.

The order requires special notice if Spectrum qualifies as a cable operator and limits use of the disclosed information to protecting and enforcing Strike 3 Holdings’ rights described in its complaint. Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order on May 21, 2024.

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-03220
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
May 21, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant is identified in the caption as John Doe, the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 24.161.44.183. The requested subpoena was directed to Spectrum, identified in the order as the internet service provider.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings established “good cause” for serving the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Spectrum with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring Spectrum to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order must be attached to the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of Rule 45 subpoena on any service provider identified in response as providing internet services to one of the defendants.

Notice and Use Restrictions

If Spectrum qualifies as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), it must comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) by sending a copy of the order to the defendant. The order limits Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information disclosed in response to the subpoena to protecting and enforcing the rights described in its 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.