Cornered, Inc. v. Does ( 2012 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CORNERED, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 10-1476 (JEB/JMF)
DOES 1-1,480,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff commenced this copyright infringement action on August 30, 2010, against
numerous “John Doe” defendants, alleging that these individuals illegally shared copyrighted
work over the Internet. Complaint for Copyright Infringement [#1] at 1. On October 22, 2010,
the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on various non-party
Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) in an effort to identify the John Doe defendants. Order [#5]
at 1. The Court further directed that, once the ISPs received the subpoenas, they were to notify
their subscribers within 5 business days so that these individuals who wished to quash the
subpoena could so move within 30 days of the subpoena’s date of service. Id. at 2.
The Court is now in receipt of numerous motions to quash, which have been accepted for
filing under seal. I have now concluded, however, that no one will be permitted to proceed any
further in this case without identifying himself or herself. Individuals who subscribe to the
internet through ISPs simply have no expectation of privacy in their subscriber information. See
U.S. v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 573 (3rd Cir. 2010) (“Federal courts have uniformly held that
‘subscriber information provided to an internet provider is not protected by the Fourth
Amendment’s privacy expectation’ because it is voluntarily conveyed to third parties.”) (internal
quotation omitted); Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 335 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Individuals generally lose
a reasonable expectation of privacy in their [subscriber] information once they reveal it to third
parties.”); Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co. v. Does 1-4,577, 736 F. Supp. 2d
212, 216 (D.D.C. 2010) (“With regard to [the movant’s] assertion that the information sought is
‘personal,’ courts have held that Internet subscribers do not have an expectation of privacy in
their subscriber information as they already have conveyed such information to the Internet
Service Providers.”).
Accordingly, those persons who have already filed motions to quash under seal have a
choice to make. If they wish to have this Court consider those motions, their motions will be
filed on the public docket. That means, of course, that plaintiff and any one else who accesses
the docket will know who they are. If, on the other hand, they would prefer not to have their
identities disclosed at this point (because their names are on the motions to quash), they will
have to withdraw their motions. I will not consider any motion unless it is publically filed.
Accordingly, it is, hereby,
ORDERED that everyone who has, to date, filed a motion to quash under seal shall
complete the attached form (which appears at the end of this Order) and mail it no later than
February 17, 2012 to :
The Honorable John M. Facciola
U.S. Magistrate Judge
U.S. District Court
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 2321
Washington DC 20001
If you fail to do so by the date above, the Court will presume that you wish to have your
motion to quash considered and it will be filed on the public docket.
2
The Court notes that because it has concluded that nobody has an expectation of
privacy in his internet subscriber information, any future motions received from John
Does seeking to proceed anonymously will be denied. Finally, it is, hereby,
ORDERED that plaintiff transmit forthwith a copy of this Order to the ISPs who were
initial recipients of plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena. The ISPs will then transmit forthwith a copy of
this Order to their subscribers.
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by John M.
Facciola
DN: c=US, st=DC, ou=District of
Columbia,
email=John_M._Facciola@dcd.usc
ourts.gov, o=U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia, cn=John M.
Facciola
Date: 2012.01.19 10:02:26 -05'00'
_____________________________
JOHN M. FACCIOLA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CORNERED, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 10-1476 (JEB/JMF)
DOES 1-1,480,
Defendants.
RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER
I DO NOT want my identity to be revealed to plaintiff and ask that my
motion to quash remain under seal so that plaintiff will not learn my
identity by seeing my name on the public docket. I withdraw my motion
to quash.
I DO want my identity to be revealed so that the Court may consider my
motion to quash and I understand that my motion will be placed on the
public docket and that plaintiff and its lawyer will thereby learn my
identity.
Print Name
Signature
Date
4