Strike 3 Holdings New York Subpoenas to Verizon and Spectrum

Strike 3 Holdings filed 43 John Doe copyright cases in New York federal courts from September 22 through September 29, 2026. If a letter from Verizon, Spectrum, Optimum, or another internet provider names one of these cases, the letter is usually notice that the provider was ordered to identify an account. It is not a finding that you downloaded anything, and it is not a summons.

As Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor stated in Sony v. Cox Communications: “When Cox receives a copyright-violation notice, however, the notice specifes only which connection was used to infringe, not who used it to commit infringement. ”

This Torrent Defenders® explainer is educational. It is not legal advice. Antonelli Law® defends people and businesses against copyright claims. We do not represent copyright holders. Most people who call want a quiet resolution. We also defend these cases in court. A call is not a decision to go to trial. Free confidential consult: contact Antonelli Law.

There is no single New York deadline. The date on your letter is the one that matters. Email or upload the letter when you reach out. You do not need to bring it to an office.

What a Strike 3 Holdings New York subpoena letter usually is

Strike 3 Holdings files these cases against a John Doe identified by an IP address. An IP address identifies an internet account, not a person. The subscriber on the bill may not be the person who used the connection. A housemate, guest, or someone on an open network can share the same address.

After filing, Strike 3 asks the court for permission to send a subpoena to the internet provider. If the court allows it, the provider writes to the subscriber. The letter usually includes the case number, the IP address, and a date. That date is often the provider’s date, not a deadline to answer a named complaint.

Do not ignore the letter. Do not call Strike 3’s lawyers to explain the facts. Do not file a document in your own name without reading why a self-filed motion can put a name on the public docket. More on timing is in the September 11 post, Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena orders.

Where the 43 cases were filed

• Southern District of New York: 14 cases, all filed September 29. The 1: cases are in Manhattan. The 7: cases are in White Plains.
• Eastern District of New York: 22 cases. Twelve filed September 22 in Brooklyn. Eight filed September 25 in Central Islip. Two filed September 29 in Brooklyn.
• Northern District of New York: 5 cases, filed September 22.
• Western District of New York: 2 cases, filed September 22. The 1: case is in Buffalo.

The September 25 Central Islip cases are also on the September 2026 filings page. Background on earlier Brooklyn cases is in the Eastern District of New York post.

Orders already entered

These clocks come from the order in that case. They do not apply to the other New York cases. A linked docket opens the document uploaded for that case.

Brooklyn, September 30. Magistrate Judge Lara K. Eshkenazi allowed a Spectrum subpoena in 1:26-cv-05857. The order says the subscriber may not be the person who used the connection. Spectrum has 60 days from the subpoena to send the subscriber the subpoena, the complaint, and the order. The subscriber then has 60 days to contest the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. Spectrum may not turn over the name before that period ends. The order also says Strike 3 may not start settlement contact before the complaint is served, unless the subscriber starts that conversation. Name and address only. No phone number or email.

Brooklyn, September 30. Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry allowed a Spectrum subpoena in 1:26-cv-05859, with protective terms in that order.

Brooklyn, October 5. Magistrate Judge Peggy Cross-Goldenberg allowed a Spectrum subpoena in 1:26-cv-05869. Spectrum has 60 days to notify the subscriber and may not disclose the name during that time. The subscriber then has 60 days to contest the subpoena or ask to proceed anonymously. If that period passes with no motion, Spectrum has 14 days to produce the name and address. The case stays captioned as John Doe unless the court orders otherwise. Strike 3 may not start settlement contact before service unless the subscriber starts it.

Brooklyn status reports. Plaintiff’s counsel told the court the provider has already mailed notice in four cases. In 1:26-cv-05863, Judge Scanlon’s October 1 order was followed by a subpoena served October 6. Counsel says the provider sent the documents by FedEx on October 9 and expects a response on or about February 16, 2027. In 1:26-cv-05864, Judge Cho’s October 2 order was followed by the same October 6 service date, the same October 9 FedEx notice, and the same expected response date. In 1:26-cv-05865, Judge Marutollo’s September 29 text order was followed by a subpoena served September 30. Counsel says notice went out October 1, with a response expected on or about February 8, 2027. In 1:26-cv-05868, Judge Kaminsky’s September 24 order was followed by a subpoena served September 25. Counsel says two-day FedEx notice went out October 1, with a response expected on or about February 2, 2027. Those dates are from the status letters in those four cases only.

White Plains, October 8. Judge Nelson S. Román allowed a Verizon Fios subpoena in 7:26-cv-08545 and a Spectrum subpoena in 7:26-cv-08542. If the provider is a cable operator, it must send the subscriber a copy of the order before disclosure. The information may be used only for this case.

White Plains, October 8. Judge Kenneth M. Karas allowed a Verizon Internet Services subpoena in 7:26-cv-08554, on the same form: name and address, a copy of the order to the subscriber if the provider is a cable operator, and use limited to this case.

Northern District, October 8. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz allowed a Spectrum subpoena in 1:26-cv-01797, 3:26-cv-01799, and 1:26-cv-01808. The 1:26-cv-01797 order includes Attachment A. Under that attachment, Spectrum has 21 days to notify the subscriber, the subscriber has 30 days to contest the subpoena anonymously, and Spectrum does not turn the name over “until the court authorizes compliance”. That part of the Order may not be as clear as it suggests, considering the following paragraph. Seek qualified legal counsel or interpretation.  The order also says Strike 3 may not solicit a settlement before the complaint is served, and that the subscriber’s name is not to be filed publicly while the sealing terms remain in place.

Not orders. The October 6 document in Western District case 1:26-cv-02085 is a motion asking to subpoena Verizon Fios. It is not a signed order. The document in 1:26-cv-08528 is a pre-motion letter to Judge Preska. The document in 7:26-cv-08558 is a pre-motion letter to Judge Román. Neither letter is a grant.

Southern District of New York — 14 cases

Manhattan cases use 1:. White Plains cases use 7:. Filed, docket, IP address, city, ISP, and works listed below are from Exhibit A on these complaints. A linked docket opens the document uploaded for that case.

Eastern District of New York — 22 cases

Brooklyn cases use 1:. Central Islip cases use 2:. IP address, city, ISP, and works listed are from Exhibit A on each complaint. The Central Islip link on the 2:26-cv-05962 docket number opens the complaint, not an order.

Northern District of New York — 5 cases

IP address, city, ISP, and works listed are from Exhibit A on each complaint. A linked docket number opens the order uploaded for that case. 1:26-cv-01796 and 1:26-cv-01805 show the same IP address and works on their Exhibit A.

Western District of New York — 2 cases

IP address, city, ISP, and works listed are from Exhibit A on each complaint. The linked 1:26-cv-02085 docket number opens the October 6 motion. That motion is not an order.

If the letter is on the table

Search this page for the IP address or the full case number, such as 1:26-cv-05857 or 7:26-cv-08545. Then read the date on your own letter. A Brooklyn order and a White Plains order do not share a deadline. You can review Antonelli Law’s series of short videos on this topic.

Most people who contact us want the matter resolved quietly, without a name on the public docket. Some cases are defended in court. Either way, the first call is a review of the letter, not a decision to litigate. Settlement options are discussed in the pros and cons of settling with Strike 3 Holdings.

Interested in learning more about how we may be tracked online? Read this post on the feds case against an alleged ransomware thief

This page is general information. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.