Facts
- Nebyou Solomon, plaintiff, required additional time to complete discovery, leading to a request for a 90-day extension of deadlines. [lines="57-58"].
- The parties were conducting written discovery and needed more time to schedule depositions and disclose experts. [lines="125-131"].
- This was the first request to extend discovery deadlines since the discovery plan was established. [lines="136-138"].
- Unexpected family emergencies impacted the plaintiffs' counsel's ability to meet deadlines, necessitating the extension. [lines="218-227"].
- Proposed new deadlines for discovery and expert disclosures were outlined to ensure thorough proceedings. [lines="266-281"].
Issues
- Whether good cause exists for extending the discovery deadlines by an additional 90 days. [lines="134-135"].
- Whether the parties can maintain compliance with the Local Rules regarding discovery extension requests. [lines="138-141"].
Holdings
- The court found that good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines due to the diligence demonstrated by the parties. [lines="185-186"].
- The request for extension was consistent with the Local Rules, allowing the parties to continue necessary discovery effectively. [lines="139-140"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 1:24-cv-00642-ALC Document 11 Filed 05/09/24 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK May 9, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------X : STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, :
: Case No. 1:24-cv-00642-ALC Plaintiff, : : vs. : : JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address :
173.52.75.21, :
: Defendant. : -----------------------------------------------------------------X
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE THIS CAUSE
came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (the “Motion”), and the Court being duly advised in the premises does hereby:
FIND, ORDER AND ADJUDGE:
1. Plaintiff established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third party subpoena on Verizon Fios (hereinafter the “ISP”). See Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3 , 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Sony Music Entm’t v. Does 1-40 , 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11 , 2013 WL 3732839 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (same); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1-30 , 284 F.R.D. 185, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (same).
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 in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this Order.
1 *2 Case 1:24-cv-00642-ALC Document 11 Filed 05/09/24 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any 3. service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of Internet services to one of the Defendants.
4. If the ISP qualifies as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), which states:
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.
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. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45
5. subpoena served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff’s rights as set forth in its Complaint.
DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of May , 202 4 .
By: ____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE May 9, 2024 New York, NY 2