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-03214
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Halpern allowed a subpoena seeking the unnamed subscriber’s identity from Optimum Online.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, John Doe, Optimum Online, and any later-identified internet service provider subject to a subpoena.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed subscriber associated with a specified internet address and asked to learn the subscriber’s identity. The case is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe.

The company asked for permission to serve Optimum Online, an internet service provider, with a subpoena before the parties’ required initial conference. The order found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause for obtaining the subscriber’s name and address.

Judge Philip M. Halpern authorized the subpoena and allowed similar subpoenas to later-identified internet providers. The information may be used only to protect and enforce the rights described in the complaint, and the subscriber must receive notice if federal cable-privacy law requires it.

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-03214
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
May 21, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified in the caption as the subscriber assigned internet protocol address 69.123.240.218. Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve a subpoena on Optimum Online, identified as the internet service provider. The order authorizes Strike 3 Holdings to serve a subpoena under Rule 45 demanding the subscriber’s true name and address. A copy of the order must accompany the subpoena.

The order also permits Strike 3 Holdings 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.

If Optimum Online qualifies as a cable operator under federal law, it must comply with the requirement that a subscriber receive notice of a court-authorized disclosure of personal identifying information. The order further limits Strike 3 Holdings’ use of information obtained through the subpoena to protecting and enforcing the rights described in its complaint.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Philip M. Halpern authorized early third-party subpoenas; the order did not decide the underlying claims. This is a procedural order concerning discovery.

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.