STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC
v.
DOE

S.D. Fla. | 2024-05-02
No. 1:24-cv-21562
2015 WL 12938590 2024 FFL 10761 District Court, S.D. Florida (2024) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A district court granted a copyright plaintiff's motion to serve a third-party subpoena on an Internet Service Provider (ISP) prior to a Rule 26(f) conference to discover the identity of a defendant accused of copyright infringement. The court found good cause existed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allow early discovery of the subscriber's name and address associated with a specific IP address.


Holding

The court granted the motion, finding that plaintiff established good cause to serve the subpoena. The court ordered that the ISP must comply with the subpoena and provide the subscriber's true name and address associated with the IP address listed in the complaint, subject to compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B) regarding cable operator privacy protections.


Headnotes

[1] A plaintiff may obtain leave to serve a third-party subpoena on an ISP prior to a Rule 26(f) conference upon a showing of good cause.

[2] A court order authorizing disclosure of subscriber information is required for an ISP to disclose such information.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Plaintiff established that 'good cause' exists for it to serve a third-party subpoena on Hotwire Communications (hereinafter the 'ISP').”

The court's determination that the plaintiff met the threshold requirement for early discovery of subscriber identity.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed suit against a defendant identified only as 'DOE' based on an IP address allegedly used in copyright infringeme…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

TO SERVE A THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Serve a Third- Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 6]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. Based thereon, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third-party subpoena on Hotwire Communications (hereinafter the “ISP”). See e.g., Clear Skies Nevada, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 15-1987-ORL-40TBS, 2015 WL 12938590, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2015); Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 15-2314-T-17TBM, 2015 WL 12856086, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2015).

2. Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name and address of the Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an IP

address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Complaint. Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this Order.

3. If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator” [fn 1], it shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which states:

A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] information if the disclosure is... made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed[] by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant.

4. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 subpoena served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff's rights as set forth in its Complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of May, 2024.

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[fn 1]: As relevant here, the term “cable operator” means “any person or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system." 47 U.S.C. § 522(5).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DOE, 2015 WL 12938590 (S.D. Fla. 2024)
    …it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third-party subpoena on Hotwire Communications (hereinafter the “ISP”). See e.g., Clear Skies Nevada, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 15-1987-ORL-40TBS, 2015 WL 12938590, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2015); Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 15-2314-T-17TBM, 2015 WL 12856086, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2015). 2. Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name a…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw