00610-20040422 Sony plaintiff opposition

8/14/2019 00610-20040422 Sony plaintiff opposition

1/26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKx

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al.,Plaintiff,

v. CaseNo. 04-CY-00473 DC)DOES 1-40,

Defendants.

x

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION TO QUASH AND RESPONSETO THE MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC CITIZEN, ET AL.

I I


2/26

Table of AuthoritiesCasesA&M Records, nc. v. Napster, nc., 239 F.3d 1004 9th Cir. 2001) 2Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121 2d Cir. 1971) 14Abrahamv. Volkswagen f America, nc., 795 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986) 20Alpha Int'l, Inc. v. T-Reproductions,nc., 2003 WL 21511957,at *3 (S.D.N.Y.July 1, 2003) 17Baker v. F&FInvestment, 470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972) 13Blesedellv. Mobil Oil Co., 708 F. Supp. 1408 S.D.N.Y. 1989) 20, 21Buckleyv. American ConstitutionalLaw Found., nc., 525 U.S. 182, 197-200

(1999) , 12Calder v. Jones,465 U.S. 783 (1984) (discussing effects test" for personaljurisdiction) 17Capitol Records, nc. v. John Does 1-250 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.26, 2004) 8Careyv. Hume, 492 F.2d 631 (D.C. Cir. 1974) 13Carrion v. City of New York, 2002 WL 31093620,at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18,2002) 7Concerned rea Residentsor the Environmentv. SouthviewFarm, 834 F. Supp.1410 W.D.N.Y. 1993) 14Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215 11th Cir. 1992) 7Duttle v. Bandler & Kass, 1992WL 162636,at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June23, 1992) 15Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) 13Elektra EntertainmentGroup, nc. v. Does 1-7, No. 3:04-CY-00607 D.N.J.Feb. 17, 2004) 8FeistPubl'ns Inc. v. Rural Tel. ServoCo., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) 13Guestv. Leis, 255 F.3d 325,335-36 (6th Cir. 2001) 11Harper & Row Publishers, nc. V.Nation Enters.,471 U.S. 539, 555-60(1985) 10Hsin TenEnter. USA, nc. v. Clark Enters., 138F. Supp.2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 17In reAimster CopyrightLitigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied,

124 S. Ct. 1069 2004) 2In re Subpoenassued o Friedman, 350 F.3d 65,67 (2d Cir. 2003) 6In re Subpoenas ervedUpon Wood,430 F. Supp.41, 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) 6In re Verizon nternet Servs., nc., 257 F. Supp.2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003) 11

1


3/26

y'W!~';: ' ."Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club, Ltd., 34 F .3d

410 (7th Cir. 1994) 17

Kapara v. Kuwait Airways Corp., 845 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1988) 15

MK. v. US Department of Justice, 1996 WL 509724, at *3 (S.D.N. Y. 1996) 11

Marsalis v. Schachner, 2002 WL 1268006, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2002) 17

Mattei, Inc. v. ProcountBusiness Services, Inc., No. 03-Civ. 7234(RWS), 2004WL 502190, at *2 (S.D.N. Y. Mar. 10, 2004) 17

McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 n.10 (1991) 14

Merkos L 'inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch, Inc., 312 F .3d 94, 96(2d Cir. 2002) 9

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D.Cal.2003) 17

Moore v. New York Cotton Exch., 270 U.S. 593, 610 (1926) 21

Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974) 20,21

Motown Record Co., L.P. v. Does 1-252 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 1,2004) 8, 20

Office of Thrift Supervision v. Dobbs, 931 F.2d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 6Oklahoma Press Publ'g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946) 12

Puricelli v. CAN Insur. Co., 185 F.R.D. 139 (N.D.N.Y 1999) 21

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 593 F .2d1030 n.67 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 12

RIAA v. Verizon, Nos. 03-7015 & 03-7053, at 14-15 14

Russell v. Board of Plumbing Examiners, 74 F. Supp. 2d 349, 351 (S.D.N.Y.1999), affd, 2001 WL 15628 (2d Cir. Jan. 5, 2001) 14

S.R. Mercantile Corp. v. Maloney, 909 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1990) 6

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979) 10

Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1999) 7

United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) 20

UnitedParcelServ. of Am., Inc. v. John Does One 11zrough Ten, No. 03cv1639,2003 WL 21715365, *1 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2003) 7

United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S.72 (1988) 15

United States v. Cox, 190 F. Supp. 2d 330,332 (N.D.N.Y. 2002) 11

United States v. Deak-Perera Int'IBanking Corp., 610 F.2d 89,89 (2d Cir. 1979) 6

United States v. Hambrick, 55 F. Supp. 2d 504,507-09 (D. W. Va. 1999) 11

United States v. Kennedy, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (D. Kan. 2000) 11

11

,,~,


4/26

Universityof Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990) """"""""'" 12Valentinv. Dinkins, 121F.3d 72, (2d Cir. 1997) 7Verizon,257 F. Supp.2d at 263 n.22 11, 14Virgin RecordsAmerica, nc. v. Does 1-44 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3,2004) 8Zacchini v. Scripps-HowardBroad. Co., 433 U.S. 562,574-78 (1977) 10Zelsonv. Thomforde,412 F.2d 56 (3d Cir. 1969) 15StatutesFed.R. Civ. P. 21 19Fed.R. Civ. P. 42 , 21FederalPractice& Procedure d 1653,at 410 (2003) 21

111


5/26

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION TO QUASH AND RESPONSETO THE MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC CITIZEN, ET AL.Plaintiffs respectfully ile this opposition o the etter motion filed by "JaneDoe" seeking

to quashPlaintiffs' subpoenao Cablevisionand n responseo the Memorandumof AmiciCuriae Public Citizen, American Civil Liberties Union, and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

JaneDoe's etter motion must be denied or two reasons.First, the motion is moot.There s no live controversy or the Court to resolvebecauseCablevisionhas complied with thesubpoena.The Court thus neednot rule on any of the ssues aisedby JaneDoe.

Second, ven f the Court entertained aneDoe's etter motion, it providesno basis orretroactivelyquashing he subpoena.Plaintiffs have shown good cause o justify discovery romCablevision. Plaintiffs have allegeda prima facie caseof copyright nfringement againstall ofthe Defendants nd cannotpursue heir claims without the dentifying information providedbyCablevision. Moreover,Plaintiffs suffer rreparableharm every day that JaneDoe and he other

Defendants ontinue o disseminate laintiffs' works unlawfully.Nor does he First Amendmentprovide any basis or quashing he subpoena.JaneDoe

hasno right to engagen copyright nfringementand hasnever assertedhat shewas engaging nconstitutionallyprotectedspeechwhen Plaintiffs caughther disseminating opyrightedworksover the Internet. Plaintiffs havesubmitted o the Court sworn estimonydescribing he evidencethat Plaintiffs havegathered oncerning he nfringementof all Defendants,ncluding JaneDoe.That evidencedemonstrateshat JaneDoe s a significant copyright nfringer who isdisseminating undredsof Plaintiffs' works without their authorization.

Finally, the Court must reject he personalurisdiction and oinder issues hat amici seekto inject nto this case. No Defendanthas aised hose ssues,nor do the arguments hat amici


6/26

raiseprovide any basis or quashinga subpoenan this case. JaneDoe will have a full and fairopportunity o raisesuch ssues if shewants o - after Plaintiffs have amended heir complaintto nameher. In any case,amici's arguments bout urisdiction and oinder lack merit.

For all of these easons,he Court shoulddeny JaneDoe's etter motion and reject heargumentsmadeby amici.

BACKGROUNDPlaintiffs' ClaimsPlaintiffs in this caseare major recordingcompanieswho own copyrights n sound

recordings. Collectively, they face a massiveproblem of digital piracy over the Internet. Everymonth, copyright nfringers unlawfully disseminate illions of perfect digital copiesof Plaintiffs'copyrightedsound ecordingsover peer-to-peer "P2P") networks. SeeLev Grossman,t's AllFree, TIME,May 5,2003. A P2P network s an online media distribution system hat allowsusers o transform heir computers nto an nteractive nternet site, disseminating iles for otherusers o copy. The most nfamousP2Pnetwork was he Napstersystem,which was enjoinedbya federalcourt. SeeA&M Records, nc. v. Napster, nc., 239 F.3d 1004 9th Cir. 2001). OtherP2Pnetworkshave,however,arisen n Napster'swake. As a direct result, Plaintiffs havesustained evastating inancial losses. Seehttp://www.riaa.comlpdfl2002yrendshipments.pdf(detailing etail salesdeclinesof7% in 2000, 10% n 2001, and 11% in 2002).

P2Puserswho disseminate upload)and copy (download)copyrightedmaterial violate ~the copyright laws. SeeA&M Records, Inc., 239 F.3d at 1013-14; In reAimster CopyrightLitigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1069 2004). Copyrightinfringementover P2P networks s widespread, owever,because serscan conceal heir

2Ii I !


7/26

-,~, ~,

identitiesby meansof an alias. Copyright ownerscan observe nfringement occurringon P2Pnetworks,but cannot without assistance)dentify the true namesand ocationsof the nfringers.

The Defendantsn this caseare activeparticipants n the Fast Track network, he largestcurrentP2Pnetwork.1 SecondDeclarationof JonathanWhitehead~4 ("SecondWhiteheadDecl.") (filed togetherwith this Memorandum). As such,eachDefendantoffers copyrightedsound ecordingsstoredon his or her computer or others o download and downloadscopyrightedsound ecordings rom other usersof the P2Pnetwork. Plaintiffs caughteachof theDefendantsn this caseopenly disseminating ound ecordingswhosecopyrightsare ownedbyPlaintiffs. By logging onto the P2Pnetwork,Plaintiffs viewed the files that eachDefendantwasoffering to other usersof the network. EachDefendant n this case s a significant nfringer:eachhaschosen o make available rom his or her computerhundredsor thousands f soundrecordings,whosecopyrightsare ownedby variousof the Plaintiffs. SeeDeclarationof JonathanWhitehead in Support of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Take Immediate Discovery ~ 17("WhiteheadDecl."); SecondWhiteheadDecl. ~ 5.

As discussedn the WhiteheadDeclarationsand summarized elow, see nfra pp. 9-10,upon finding eachDefendantdisseminatingarge numbersof copyrightedworks, Plaintiffsgathered ubstantial videnceof eachDefendant'sllegal conduct. Nonetheless,Plaintiffs couldnot ascertainhe name,address, r any other contact nformation for any of the Defendants.WhiteheadDecl. ~~ 16,21. Plaintiffs could, however, dentify the Internet Protocol ("IP")addressrom which eachDefendantwas unlawfully disseminatingPlaintiffs' copyrightedworks.

An IP addresss a 10-digit number,suchas 12.34.255.255,hat specifically dentifies a

1 The only Defendantwho useda different P2Pnetwork has alreadycontactedPlaintiffs (as aresult of the notice sentby Cab1evision) nd has agreed o a settlementwith the Plaintiffs. Onceall of the paperwork s complete,Plaintiffs intend o dismiss hat Defendant.3


8/26

--particular computerusing the Internet. SecondWhiteheadDecl.~ 7. Using he P address,Plaintiffs determined hat Cablevision,an ISP headquarteredn New York City with a largepartof its subscriber ase n the New York metropolitanarea,servesas eachDefendant's SP.Cablevisionmaintains ogs that match P addresses ith subscribers. d. By looking at its IPaddressogs, Cablevisioncan (and, n this case,did) match he IP address, ate,and ime withthe subscriberwho was using the IP addresswhen Plaintiffs observed he nfringement. Thus,Cablevision andonly Cablevision could dentify the Defendantsn this case.

ProceduralHistoryAfter filing the Complaint,Plaintiffs sought eave o issue imited discovery o

Cablevision o ascertain he dentities of the Defendants.SeePlaintiffs' Ex Parte Application toTake ExpeditedDiscovery (Jan.26, 2004). The Court granted hat motion, seeJan.26, 2004Order, and Plaintiffs served he subpoena n February2,2004. On February3,2004, the Courtissueda secondorder re-affirming that its "January26,2004 order remains n effect" andestablishing process or the resolutionof any motions o quash. SeeFeb. 3,2004 Order. TheCourt directedCablevision o notify Defendants f the subpoenawithin 'five businessdays. Id.It further ordered hat f any of the "defendantswished o move to quash he subpoena,hey shalldo so before he return dateof the subpoena,"which was February23,2004. Id. at 2.

Cablevisionsent he requirednotice to the Defendants.SeeMemorandumof CSCHoldings Inc. in Responseo the Court'sFebruary27, 2004 Order ConcerningPlaintiffs'Subpoenao Cablevision "CablevisionMem."). On February19,2004, JaneDoe (throughherattorney,Mr. Hanko) sent a letter to this Court and a separateetter to Cablevision o demandthat Cablevision ile a motion to quash. SeeLetter from KennethHanko to Alfred Kiefer,Feb. 19,2004; Letter from KennethHanko o the HonorableDenny Chin, Feb. 19,2004. JaneDoe did not, however, ile a motion. On February20, Mr. Kiefer from Cablevisionspokewith

4

~v


9/26

.-Mr. Hanko and nfonned him that JaneDoe needed o file a motion to quash n order o stopCablevision rom responding o the subpoena.Mr. Hanko did not indicate hat he would befiling sucha motion and madeno suggestionhat he ntendedhis letter to the Court to be suchamotion.2SeeDeclaration f Alfred G. KieferJr.~~ 5-7 (attached o CablevisionMem.).Because o subscribermoved o quashprior to the return dateand Cablevisionhad no validobjection o the subpoena,t produced he nfonnation to Plaintiffs on February23, 2004.

On February27,2004, the Court enteredan order construingMr. Hanko's etter as amotion to quashand directing Cablevision o notify the other Defendants hat they could file amotion to quashby March 19, 2004. SeeFeb. 27, 2004 Order. Both Plaintiffs and Cablevisionnotified the Court that Cablevisionhad alreadycompliedwith the subpoena, nd Plaintiffsinfonned the Court that they believedMr. Hanko's etter motion was moot. SeeLetter fromChristopher enseno the HonorableDenny Chin, March 2,2004; CablevisionMem. at 5. TheCourt ater extended he deadline or motions o quashuntil April 8. SeeMarch 25,2004 Order.

On April 7, 2004, JaneDoe senta short etter o the Court ndicating her intention o relyon her counsel'sFebruary19, 2004, etter asher "fonnal motion to quash." SeeLetter from JaneDoe to the HonorableDenny Chin, April 7, 2004. No other Defendant iled a motion to quash.JaneDoe's etter refers o two grounds or quashing he subpoena: 1) Plaintiffs madeaninadequateactual showing n supportof the subpoena, nd 2) Cablevision'sdisclosureofinfonnation compromised er "First Amendment ight to anonymity." Id.3 On April 8, 2004,

2 Plaintiffs receiveda copy of Mr. Hanko's etter after Cablevisionhad respondedo thesubpoena.SeeLetter from Christopher enseno the HonorableDenny Chin, March 2, 2004.3 Neither Mr. Hanko's letter nor JaneDoe's letter mentionspersonalurisdiction or oinder.Rather, hey focus only on the claim that Plaintiffs "have not madea sufficient factual showingto warrantdiscoveryconcerning he unnameddefendants."Letter from KennethHanko o theHonorableDenny Chin, Feb. 19,2004 ("On February2,2004, the Electronic FrontierFoundation,Public Citizen and he American Civil Liberties Union submitteda letter o the5


10/26

amici filed a memorandumn supportof any motions o quash,arguing he right to anonymity,aswell as severalother ssues.

ARGUMENTI. THE ISSUES RAISED BY JANE DOE AND AMICI ARE MOOT.

Cablevision's ompliancewith the subpoenaendersJaneDoe's motion to quashmoot.BecauseCablevisionhas alreadyproduced he nformation soughtby the subpoena,here s nolonger a live controversy. SeeUnited Statesv. Deak-Perera nt'IBanking Corp., 610 F.2d 89,89(2d Cir. 1979) dismissingcaseas "moot" onceparty compliedwith discovery equest). As theSecondCircuit held n a case n which one party soughtdiscoveryof information about anotherparty from the government: [n]o live controversy egarding he propriety of disclosureexists nthis casebecausehe governmentalreadyhas disclosed he documentsn questionpursuant o thedistrict court order." S.R.Mercantile Corp. v. Maloney, 909 F.2d 79,81 (2d Cir. 1990);seealsoIn re Subpoenassued o Friedman, 350 F.3d 65,67 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that appealwasmoot onceparty had agreed o comply with discovery equest); n re Subpoenas ervedUponWood,430 F. Supp.41, 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) noting that onceparty had "fully complied withsubpoena,"he court "deniedas moot a motion to quash");Office of Thrift Supervisionv. Dobbs,931 F.2d 956, 957 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

Amici make a half-heartedattempt o rescue aneDoe'smotion from mootness, ut theirargumentsack merit. First, amici cite the criminal law's exclusionary ule, which bars he useofillegally obtainedevidence.Amici Mem. at 16. The SecondCircuit has madeclear, however,that the exclusionary ule doesnot extend o non-criminal contexts. SeeTownes . City of

Court pointing out that plaintiff havenot madea sufficient factual showing o warrant discoveryconcerning he unnameddefendants.On behalf of my client, I join in the arguments et orth inthe February2,2004, letter.").6

~


11/26

.

New York, 176F.3d 138, 145-46 2d Cir. 1999). In any case,Plaintiffs did not obtain heinfonnation llegally and hus he exclusionary ule could not apply. Second,amici note hatcourtssometimes rder he return of privileged material hat is inadvertentlydisclosedduringdiscovery. Amici Mem. at 16. That has absolutelyno bearingon this case. The infonnation thatCablevisionsupplied s not privileged, and Cablevisiondid not produce t inadvertently.Moreover,courtsdo not require eturn of material nadvertentlyproducedwhere, as here,suchmaterial s otherwisediscoverable.See,e.g., Carrion v. City of New York, 2002 WL 31093620,at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18,2002) (limiting useof privileged nfonnation improperly obtained,butpennitting useof infonnation improperly obtained hat was otherwisediscoverable).

BecauseCablevisionhascompliedwith the subpoena, laintiffs have he infonnationthey need o pursue his lawsuit. The Court should hus deny JaneDoe'smotion asmoot.II. PLAINTIFFS MET THE GOOD CAUSE STANDARD FOR EXPEDITEDDISCOVERY.

Even f this Court considers he merits of JaneDoe's arguments,he Court must still denythe motion. Plaintiffs have satisfied he "good cause"standard equired o take expediteddiscovery. SeePlaintiffs' Mem. of Law in Supportof Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to TakeImmediateDiscovery ("Plaintiffs' App.") at 5-8.

Indeed, t is an abuseof discretion o deny discoverywhere a plaintiff can show suchdiscovery s likely to reveal he Doe defendants'dentities. SeeDean v. Barber, 951 F 2d 1210,1215 11th Cir. 1992); Valentinv. Dinkins, 121F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997);seea/so Plaintiffs' App.at 4. Courts egularly authorizediscovery rom ISPs o identify defendants sing he Internet obreak he aw. See,e.g., UnitedParce/Serv. of Am., Inc. v. John Does One Through Ten,No.03cv1639,2003 WL 21715365, 1 (N.D. Ga. June 13,2003) (authorizingexpediteddiscoveryfrom ISPs o determine he dentity of defendants). n 25 parallel cases, ourts have as his

7


12/26

Court did - authorizedexpediteddiscovery rom ISPs o identify defendantsnfringingcopyrightsover P2Pnetworks. SeeOrder, WarnerBros. v. John Does 1-43 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10,2004); Capitol Records, nc. v. John Does 1-250 S.D.N.Y. Jan.26,2004); ElektraEntertainmentGroup, nc. v. Does 1-7, No. 3:04-CV-00607 D.N.J. Feb. 17,2004);MemorandumOpinion, UMGRecordingsv. Does 1-199 D.D.C. Mar. 10,2004); MotownRecord Co.,L.P. v. Does 1-252 N.D. Ga. Mar. 1,2004); Virgin RecordsAmerica, nc. v.Does 1-44 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2004); Order,Fonovisa, nc. v. Does 1-67 (D. Col. Apr. 8,2004);Order,Maverick RecordingCo. v. Does 1-12 (D. Col. Apr. 8,2004); Order,Motown Record Co.v. Does 1-5 (D. Col. Apr. 8,2004); Order,Motown RecordCo. v. Does 1-3 (D. Col. Apr. 8,2004); Order, WamerBros. Records nc. v. Does 1-9 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5,2004); Order,AristaRecords, nc. v. Doe (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5,2004); Order,Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Does 1-13(E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2004); Order,Fonovisa, nc. v. Does 1-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2004); Order,London-SireRecords, nc. v. Does 1-4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2004); Order, Priority RecordsLLCv.Doe (S.D. Ind. Apr. 2, 2004); Order,Atlantic RecordingCorp. v. Does 1-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 31,2004); Order,BMGMusic v. Does 1-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2004); Order,Arista Records, nc. v.Does1-143 B.D.Tex.Mar. 30,2004);Order,CapitolRecords,nc. v. Does1-2 (C.D.Cal.Mar. 30,2004); Order, WarnerBros. Records nc. v. Does 1-4 (C.D. Ca1.Mar. 30,2004); Order,InterscopeRecordsv. Does 1-4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30,2004); Order, nterscopeRecordsv. Does 1-7(M.D. Tenn.Mar. 29, 2004); Order, nterscopeRecords . Does 1-5 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2004);Order, Virgin RecordsAmerica, nc. v. Doe (D. Md. Apr. 19, 2004).4

In all of thesecases, laintiffs do not know who the defendants re or where hey reside.Without discovery,plaintiffs injured by conductover the Internetwill neverbe able o enforce

4 Plaintiffs areproviding theseorders o the Court n an appendix.8

"",,


13/26

--","

their rights. Suchdiscovery s particularly critical herebecausePlaintiffs suffer rreparablehanneveryday that Defendants ontinue o disseminate laintiffs' copyrightedworks withoutauthorization. SeeMerkos L'inyonei Chinuch, nc. v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch, nc., 312 F 3d 94,96 (2d Cir. 2002) (a prima facie caseof copyright nfringementgenerally s irreparablehann).

JaneDoe contends hat "plaintiffs havenot madea sufficient factual showing o justifyproductionof my personal nformation." Letter from JaneDoe to the HonorableDenny Chin,April 7, 2004. Plaintiffs, however,do not need o provide additional evidence n order o receivea responseo a subpoenahey awfully served. Nonetheless, laintiffs supported heir motion totake mmediatediscoverywith substantial vidence. With respect o eachDefendant,Plaintiffsspecified he IF address, ate,and ime of the nfringement; hat information uniquely specifiedaCablevisionsubscriberas he sourceof the infringement. WhiteheadDecl.~16. Plaintiffsdownloaded list of the files disseminated y eachDefendantand downloadedseveral ilesbeing disseminated y eachDefendant o confirm that Plaintiffs owned he copyrightsof thesound ecordings. d. ~~ 16, 17. For eachDefendant,Plaintiffs provided a list of severalcopyrightedsound ecordings hat the Defendantdisseminated ithout authorization. SeeExhibit A to the Complaint. That ist, however, s only a small subsetof the copyrightedsoundrecordings hat eachDefendant s unlawfully disseminating.As explained n the two WhiteheadDeclarations, achDefendantwas offering hundredsof additionalcopyrightedsound ecordingsownedby variousof the Plaintiffs without authorization. SeeWhiteheadDecl.~17; SecondWhiteheadDecl.~5.

Finally, Plaintiffs provided he Court, as an example,detailed ists of the hundredsoffiles being distributedby threeof the Defendants; hese ists are "screenshots" showingpreciselywhat copyrightedworks eachDefendantwas disseminatingo other users. SeeExhibit 1 to

9


14/26

WhiteheadDecl. Plaintiffs also submitteda sworn declaration hat they possess irtuallyidentical evidence or eachof the other Defendants,ncluding JaneDoe. SeeWhiteheadDecl.' 17; SecondWhiteheadDec1.' 5.

Plaintiffs thus haveprovidedvoluminousevidenceof infringementby Defendants,including JaneDoe, and seekonly limited information o vindicate heir rights. Plaintiffs havesatisfied he "good cause"standard equired o take expediteddiscovery o uncoverher identity.III. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ANONYMOUS COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT.

JaneDoe'sonly other argument s that Cablevision's ompliancewith the subpoena"compromise[ed]my First Amendment ight to anonymity." Letter from JaneDoe to theHonorableDenny Chin, April 7, 2004. As with her first argument, aneDoe offers noexplanationor legal citation to supporther claim, althoughamici try to fill the void.

JaneDoe hasno right to engagen copyright nfringement,anonymouslyor otherwise.SeeHarper & Row Publishers, nc. v. Nation Enters.,471 U.S. 539, 555-60 (1985); Zacchini v.Scripps-HowardBroad. Co., 433 U.S. 562, 574-78 1977). JaneDoe doesnot deny hat she scommitting massivecopyright nfringementand makesno claim that shewas engaging nconstitutionallyprotectedexpressionwhen Plaintiffs caughther disseminating heir copyrightedworks. Absentsuchan assertion, here s no First Amendment ight at issue n this case.

Because aneDoe was not engaging n constitutionallyprotectedexpression, miciattempt o createa generalized qualified privilege" in anonymity on the Internet,seeAmiciMem. at 4, but there s no suchprinciple of law. Individuals haveno expectationof privacy(under he First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments)hat preventsdisclosureof the business ecordsofthird parties,suchas SPs. "[A] personhasno legitimate expectationof privacy in informationhe voluntarily turns over to third parties." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979);

10

~"


15/26

UnitedStates . Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442-45 (1976). Just as elephoneusers orfeit theexpectation hat the telephone ompanywill conceal ecordsof their calls, seeSmith, 442 U.S. at742, SP subscribers aveno legitimateexpectation hat ISPswill conceal heir identities nresponseo legal process. SeeGuestv. Leis, 255 F.3d 325,335-36 (6th Cir. 2001) ("[C]omputerusersdo not have a legitimate expectation f privacy in their subscriber nformation becauseheyhaveconveyed t to anotherperson the systemoperator.");United Statesv. Hambrick, 55 F.Supp.2d 504, 507-09 D. W. Va. 1999),affd, 225 F.3d 656 (4th Cir. 2000) (table); MK. v. U:SDepartmentof Justice, 1996WL 509724,at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) "A telephoneuser hasnoexpectation f privacy in the billing recordsmaintainedby the telephone ompany,even houghthese ecordsconcerncalls made rom his own telephone ine."); United Statesv. Cox, 190F.Supp.2d 330, 332 (N D.N.Y. 2002) (no right to privacy in subscriber nformation given to ISP).

This is especially rue here. Eachof the Defendantsn this casechose o log onto a P2Pnetwork and o make available he contentsof his or her computer o millions of other people.As one court explained n rejecting he arguments mici makehere, given that an ISP subscriber"openshis computer o permit others, hroughpeer-to-peerilesharing, o downloadmaterialsfrom that computer, t is hard o understandust what privacy expectationhe or shehas afteressentiallyopening he computer o the world." In re Verizon nternet Servs., nc., 257 F. Supp.2d 244,267 (D.D.C. 2003), rev'don other grounds,351 F.3d 1229 D.C. Cir. 2003); seealsoUnited States . Kennedy,81 F. Supp.2d 1103, 1110 D. Kan. 2000) (activation of file sharingmechanism howsno expectation f privacy).

Moreover,Defendants annot easonably xpectCablevision o preserve heir anonymitybecauseCablevision nforms them, n no uncertain erms, hat copyright nfringement sforbiddenand hat it will disclose heir names n responseo legal requests.SeeCablevision

11


16/26

Mem. at 2 (citing Cablevision's ermsof service nforming users hat it will "discloseanyinformation asnecessaryo satisfy any aw, regulation,or other governmental equest"). Thus,althoughamici wish to protect he Defendants' nonymity,Defendants ave already orfeited t.5

Amici try to distinguish his well-established ody of case aw as "irrelevant," by arguingthat the cases onsiderprivacy interestsunder he Fourth Amendment,not the First Amendment.Amici Mem. at 7. That analysis s flawed becauset presupposeshat the Defendants ave a FirstAmendment nterest n anonymously iolating the copyright aws. As discussed bove, hey donot. Moreover, he SupremeCourt has epeatedly ejectedclaims hat an assertionof FirstAmendment nterests ompelsa heightenedevel of scrutinyprior to issuance f (or responseo)a subpoena r other udicial process.SeeUniversityof Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 199-200(1990); OklahomaPressPubl'g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 192-93 1946); ReportersComm.for Freedomof the Pressv. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 593 F.2d 1030, 1050n.67 (D.C. Cir. 1978)(rejecting equirement hat ournalists receivenotice prior to issuance f subpoenasor tollcalling records).

Amici further discuss everalcasesn which courtshave engagedn a balancing estbeforeordering he disclosureof an anonymous peaker'sdentity. Amici Mem. at 5-7. Amiciask he court to "draw[] by analogy" rom casesnvolving subpoenaso identify journalisticsources.Amici Mem. at 5. Thosecases est on far more significant First Amendment nterests

5 Amici claim that a pamphleteer oesnot give up his right to anonymity f he s recognizedonthe streetby a passer-by.Amici Br. at 8-9. But that claim hasno relevancehere. While thegovernmentmay be limited in its ability to requirepampWeteerso disclose heir identitiespriorto andas a condition on speaking, he First Amendment mposesno limit on the authority of asubpoena r other egal process o command he passer-by o provide information n his or herpossession the dentity of the pamphleteer. t is the latter situationwe havehere. SeealsoBuckleyv. American ConstitutionalLaw Found., nc., 525 U.S. 182, 197-200 1999) (contrastinginvalid requirement hat petitionerswear an dentification badgewhile petitioning with validrequirement hat petitionerssign an affidavit attesting o signatures btainedafter petitioning).

12


17/26

thanamici can musterhere. Cf Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186,221 (2003) (the FirstAmendmentbearsessheavilywhenspeakerssserthe ight o makeotherpeople's peeches").Even f, however, he Court were o apply the samestandard ere,Plaintiffs would easily satisfyit. To obtain he identity of a ournalistic source,a plaintiff needshow only that the informationis relevant, he nformation cannotbe obtainedby anothermeans,and here s a compellinginterest or providing the information. SeeCareyv. Bume, 492 F.2d 631,632 (D.C. Cir. 1974);Baker v. F&F Investment,470 F.2d 778, 783 (2d Cir. 1972). Notably, Carey doesnot require hecourt to examine he merits of a plaintiffs claims. Rather,a plaintiff must show that theinformation s sought n good aith, is unavailable rom any other source,and s central o theplaintiffs claim. 492 F 2d at 632. Plaintiffs in this casehaveallegeda prima facie caseofcopyright nfringement,seeFeist Publ'ns nc. v. Rural Tel. ServoCo., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)(requiring allegationsof ownershipof a copyright and violation of an exclusive ight), and hereis no dispute hat the limited information sought s unavailable rom any other sourceand centralto Plaintiffs' claims.

Amici, citing other "balancing"cases, onetheless rgue hat the Court should ook at themerits of Plaintiffs' claims to determinewhetherPlaintiffs have evidence o support heir causeof action. Amici Br. at 6-7. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims, however,are not germaneat thisstageof the proceedings.Even f they were, however,Plaintiffs have exceededhe standardsnany of the cases ited by amici. As discussed bove,Plaintiffs have alreadyprovided sworntestimonyconcerning he evidence upporting heir claims, ncluding downloadsof copyrightedsongsactually being disseminated nd ists of hundreds f other sound ecordingsbeingunlawfully disseminated y eachDefendant, ncluding JaneDoe. Seesupra pp. 9-10; Second

13


18/26

WhiteheadDecl., .6 As the District Court for the District of Columbia held in examiningvirtually identical facts n the Verizon case,such evidencemore than satisfies he standardsnany of the cases ited by amici. SeeVerizon,257 F. Supp.2d at 263 n.22.7IV. THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTSRAISED BY AMICI AND, IN ANY CASE, THOSE ARGUMENTS ARE

MERITLESS.Amici aise wo ssues personalurisdictionand oinder thatneither aneDoenor any

Defendanthas raised. It is well settled hat" amicuscannot aise or implicate new ssuesthat havenot beenpresented y the parties." Russellv. Board of Plumbing Examiners,74 F.Supp.2d 349,351 (S.D.N.Y. 1999),affd, 2001 WL 15628 2d Cir. Jan. 5, 2001). SeealsoMcCleskey . Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 523 n.10 (1991) ("It is well established. . that this Court willnot consideran argumentadvanced y amicuswhen hat argumentwas not raisedor passed nbelow and was not advancedn this Court by the party on whosebehalf the argument s beingraised."). The Court should hus decline o consideramici's arguments. Concerned reaResidentsfortheEnvironmentv. SouthviewFarm,834F. Supp. 1410, 1413 W.D.N.Y. 1993).

Moreover,given that no party has aisedany of the ssuesmentionedby amici, the ssuesarenot ripe for judicial review. It is axiomatic hat egal ssuesshouldnot be resolved n theabstract.SeeAbele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121, 1124 2d Cir. 1971). The federal courts "resolvereal issuesbetweengenuineadversaries" nd do not "give advisory opinions with respect o

6 Amici's principal complaint s that Plaintiffs provided a sample, ather han the entirety, oftheir evidence.Amici Mem. at 9. Plaintiffs provided a samplebecausehere s no sound easonfor requiring he submissionof boxesof documents o supportgood cause or a subpoena.Plaintiffs haveprovided sworn estimony hat they have evidencewith respect o all Defendantsthat mirrors the samples rovided. SeeWhiteheadDecl.' 17; SecondWhiteheadDecl.' 5.Plaintiffs cannotprovide more detailedevidenceof JaneDoe's unlawful actsbecausehey do notknow which Defendantshe s.7 Public Citizen concededn the D.C. Circuit that evidence dentical to that which Plaintiffs haveput forward meets he test amici propose n their brief. SeeBrief Amicus Curiae of PublicCitizen nRIAA v. Verizon,Nos.03-7015& 03-7053, t 14-15 filed May 16,2003).

14II I .


19/26

-. ~--abstractor theoreticalquestions." d. Resolutionof the egal arguments aisedby amici wouldamount o ust such an mproper advisoryopinion. Id.In any event,amici's personalurisdiction and oinder arguments ail on their merits.A. Personal JurisdictionThis Court s in no position o issuea ruling of any kind on personalurisdiction; indeed,

to do so would be reversibleerror. Only a defendant as standing o raise personal urisdiction.Moreover, he defenseof personalurisdiction can be (and regularly s) waived. See,e.g.,NihonKeizai Shimbun, nc. v. ComlineBusinessData, Inc., 166F.3d 65,75 (2d Cir. 1999). Theremaybe many reasonswhy the Defendants, egardless f where hey reside,may wish to litigate inNew York. Issuing a ruling now on personalurisdiction would effectively deny Defendants hatchoice.

For these easons,t is settled aw that this Court cannot aise he issueof personaljurisdiction sua sponte,and amici are n no position to raiseor litigate it on behalf of theDefendants.SeeKapara v. Kuwait Airways Corp., 845 F.2d 1100,1105 (D.C. Cir. 1988);Zelsonv. Thomforde, 12 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1969). Nor is a possible ack of personal urisdiction abasis or denying discovery or, in this case, equiring discoveryalreadydisclosed o bereturned). SeeUnited StatesCatholic Conference . Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S.72,76 (1988) ("even f it were ultimately determined hat [the court lackedpersonalurisdiction],the order or process t issued n the conductof the litigation would still be valid"). Plaintiffssought he subpoenan good faith in order o determine he dentities or geographic ocationsofthe Defendants o that this casecould proceed. Cablevision espondedn good faith and couldnot itself have aisedpersonalurisdiction as a grounds or refusing o comply. SeeDuttle v.Bandler & Kass, 1992WL 162636,at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June23, 1992). Plaintiffs thus are entitledto use he nformation obtained o amend heir complaint andproceed n this case possibly

15


20/26

""

facing motions o dismisson personalurisdiction grounds)or in another ederalcourt, f thatforum is more appropriate.

Indeed, f any Defendantever decides o raisepersonalurisdiction in a motion todismiss, his Court could only evaluate hat defense y cataloguingDefendants' ontactswith thedistrict, a process hat cannotbegin until the Defendants re dentified. The Court would almostcertainly authorizediscovery nto the Defendants' ontactswith this District, beginningwith theDefendants'dentity and residence.The specterof sucha motion in the future cannotpossiblyserveas a basis or quashing hat very discoverynow.

In any case, here s good eason o believe hat this Court has urisdiction over allDefendants.To be sure, he nformation producedby Cablevision ndicates hat most of theDefendants aveaddresses utside his udicial district; all Defendantsappear,however, o livein New York, Connecticutor New Jersey. That fact, however,doesnot mean hat this Courtlacks urisdiction over them. EachDefendanthascontactswith New York directly related o theconduct n this case. Eachhascontractedwith an ISP headquarteredn New York and hasagreed o abideby New York law arising out of its contract or Internet servicewith Cablevision.See Cablevision's Optimum Online Terms of Service at ~30, available for review athttp://www.optimumonline.coin/index.jhtmi.Moreover,Plaintiffs have evidence hat eachDefendantengagedn massivecopyright nfringementdisseminating undredsof copyrightedworks to anyone hat wanted hem (including residentsof this urisdiction) and downloadingcopyrightedworks from otherswho offered hem (including residentsof this urisdiction). 8Although eachDefendantwas caughtcommitting nfringementat a particular point in time, the

8 A userdownloadinga file on a P2Pnetwork suchas KaZaA may download he same ile frommultiple computersat one ime. SeeSecondWhiteheadDecl.~ 6. Thus,whena user n NewJerseydownloadsa file, he or shemay be receivingparts of the same ile, at the same ime, froma computer n the New York, a computer n California, and a computer n Florida. [d.16


21/26

sheernumberof works being disseminated emonstrateshat eachwas engagedn a persistentcourseof conductover a substantial eriod of time. Eachhad effectively transformedhis or hercomputer nto an nteractive nternetsite, allowing others o complete ransactions bydownloadingcopyrightedworks) over the Internet. It is clear hat commercialwebsites hatcomplete ransactions ver the Internetmay subject hemselveso urisdiction basedon evenasingle sale. SeeMatteI, Inc. v. ProcountBusinessServices,nc., No. 03-Civ. 7234(RWS),2004WL 502190,at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10,2004) (holding that a single ransactionover the Internetwith a forum state esident s sufficient to supportan exerciseof jurisdiction).9 The fact that P2Pinfringers, ike Defendant, radecopyrightedworks rather han sell them s irrelevant o whetherthe websitesare ully interactive. Amici Mem. at 11. The aw of jurisdiction doesnotdistinguishbetween llegal actscommitted n exchangeor money and llegal actscommitted nexchange or bartered and llegal) goods. 0

9 Seealso Hsin TenEnter. USA, nc. v. Clark Enters., 138F. Supp.2d 449, 454, 456 (S.D.N.Y.2000) ("Generally, an nteractivewebsitesupportsa finding of personalurisdiction over thedefendant."); eegenerally Marsalis v. Schachner, 002 WL 1268006,at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. June6,2002) ("active" site that allows transactionswith residentsof New York sufficient to conferjurisdiction); seealso Alpha Int 'I, Inc. v. T Reproductions,nc., 2003 WL 21511957,at *3(S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2003) ("Websites hat permit information exchange etween he defendantandviewers are deemed interactive,' and generallysupporta fmding of personal urisdiction overthe defendant.").10 Jurisdictionmay also be properbecausehe brunt of the harm n this case at leastas oseveralof the Plaintiffs) is felt in this forum. Wherea defendant nowingly causes arm to aforum state esident,such as an owner of intellectualproperty, he defendantmay subject tself tosuit where he plaintiff resides. SeeCalder v. Jones,465 U.S. 783 (1984) (discussing effectstest" for personalurisdiction); Indianapolis Colts, nc. v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club,Ltd., 34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994) action or infringementof IndianapolisColts' trademarkproper n Indiana);Metro-Goldwyn-MayerStudios, nc. v. GrokYter, td., 243 F. Supp.2d 1073,1088-89 C.D. Cal. 2003) (action or infringementby movie studiosproper n California). Inthis case,New York is home o many of the Plaintiffs and s one of the epicenters f the musicindustry. Defendants learly knew or shouldhaveknown that the theft of intellectualpropertyfrom the major recordingcompanieswould have seriouseffects n New York.

17


22/26

Thus, here s a good aith basis o believe here s urisdiction over Defendantsn thiscase. But that ssue s not before he Court at this time. The only question s whetheramici'sconcerns boutpersonalurisdiction provide a basis or compelling he Plaintiffs to returninformation awfully obtained n discovery. Clearly they do not. This Court will, however,haveampleopportunity o considerpersonalurisdiction over Defendants,f any Defendantchoosesoraise t. Assuming he Court deniesJaneDoe'smotion to quashand rejectsamici's arguments,Plaintiffs will contact he Defendants nd discusspossiblesettlementwith them. It hasbeenPlaintiffs' experience hat, onceconfrontedwith the substantialevidencePlaintiffs havegathered,

many Defendantswill elect o settle. For Defendantswhose itigation proceedswithoutsettlement,Plaintiffs and Defendants an determinewhether t is proper o continue n thisjurisdiction, whether ransfer o another orum is preferable,and whether severance f somenumberof claims s desirable, ee nfra. Any Defendantswho wish to raisepersonalurisdiction(or oinder) issuescanmake sucharguments t that time in the appropriate ourt.

Finally, amici's proposal or how this caseshouldproceedmakesno sensewhatsoever.Amici Br. at 11-12. They appear o concede hat Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain he dentities ofthe Defendants, rovided Plaintiffs guess he correctcourt n which to file suit, using headmittedly mprecisemethodsdiscussedn amici's declaration. 1 Under amici's plan, Plaintiffs

11Amici's declaration s misleading n suggestinghat copyright ownerscan determine helocation of Internet nfringers by meansof various ools. SeeSchoenDecl. These ools do notprovide the sort of accuracyof information hat amici imply. First, amici refer to the useofgeographical odes, d. at 7, 14, but thosecodescanbe misleading. ISPshave completecontrolover the codes hey use o describe he routers n their network. Someuse geographical odes,but othersdo not. SecondWhiteheadDecl., 9. Plaintiffs' and heir trade association'sexperiences that suchcodesaccurately dentify the region n which the infringer livessignificantly ess han 100%of the time. Id. Where suchcodesare naccurate, hey can be veryinaccurate. d. Second,asamici's own Declarationshows,such ools reveal- at most a majormetropolitanareaor state hroughwhich Internet raffic to the subscribermust pass. SchoenDecl. ,~ 9, 10. Such nformation may not accurately dentify the udicial district or even he

~1:')~: 18


23/26

would often have o burden hreedifferent federalcourts o commencea lawsuit. Plaintiffswould have o guess he district in which eachDefendant esides,and then file suit in thatdistrict. They would then have o issuesubpoenaso Cablevision rom this Court. Thus,regardless f where he lawsuit is filed, this Court would have o resolveany subpoenaenforcement roceedings nd/ormotions o quash as t is doing now). Finally, once heDefendants re dentified and heir locations evealed,Plaintiffs would, in many cases, ave ore-file in yet a third federal court. As a matterof judicial efficiency and fairness o theDefendants, ucha merry-go-roundof courtsmakes ittle sense. ts primary effect s to placeadditionalburdenon the Plaintiffs without providing Defendantswith any additionalprotection.

B. JoinderAmici provide no rationale or litigating oinder prior to the identification of the

Defendants.Because he sole remedy or misjoinder s severance, ot dismissaland not thequashingof a subpoena, eeFed. R. Civ. P. 21, litigation of joinder at this point servesnopurpose,other than o delay proceedings.Joinder s unrelated o the "anonymity" that amici seekto protect,and amici can explain no benefits hat severance t this time would provide.

fudeed,severance t this time would be harmful to Plaintiffs, Defendants, nd the Court.Plaintiffs would be required o file multiple virtually identical awsuits, ollowed by virtuallyidentical motions for immediatediscovery n eachcase, ollowed by virtually identicalsubpoenaso Cablevision. Defendantsmay prefer to litigate together,given the commonalityofissuesamong hem and he potential economicbenefitsof litigating together,but would bedenied hat choice. Finally, the Court would face he additionalburdenof numerous dentical

statewhere he nfringer resides. SecondWhiteheadDecl.~ 9. As evenamici hemselvesreforced o concede, hey can only determine hat the Defendants appear" to be located in ornear" certaincities. SchoenDecl. ~ 10.19


24/26

-

lawsuits, nvolving many similar factual and egal issues,aswell as he exact same hresholdissue discovery o identify the alleged nfringers.12

In any event, oinder is proper n this case. The FederalRules direct "the broadestpossiblescopeof action consistentwith fairness o the parties because]oinder of claims, partiesand remedies s strongly encouraged."UnitedMine Workersof Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724(1966). "Rule 20 is to promote rial convenience nd o expedite he resolutionof disputes,therebypreventingmultiple lawsuits." Blesedellv. Mobil Oil Co., 708 F. Supp. 1408, 1421(S.D.N.Y. 1989). The Court thus has wide discretion n determiningwhether oinder isappropriate nd, f it is not, at what stageof the proceedings everance houldbe compelled. SeeMosley v. GeneralMotors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1332 8th Cir. 1974).

Amici's sole argument s that Plaintiffs do not meet he secondof two prerequisites orjoinder: that the Complaint allegesa right to relief relating o or arising out of the sametransactionor occurrence r seriesof transactions r occurrences.3 As the SupremeCourt hasexplained, he terms "transaction"and "occurrence"are "word[s] of flexible meaning. It maycomprehend seriesof many occurrences, epending ot so much upon the immediateness f

12 Amici cite one case n which a district court n Pennsylvania equired severancen a parallelcaseand anothercase n which a magistrateudge has ecommended everance.Amici Mem. at13-14. They gnore, however, he 25 other courts hat haveauthorizedPlaintiffs to takeexpediteddiscoverywithout requiring severance.Severalof thosecourts have expresslyaddressedhe argumentsmadeby amici and have ound that considerationof issues elated ojoinder is premature.See,e.g., UMGRecordingsv. Does 1-199 at 2 (D.D.C. Mar. 10,2004)("[i]t is clear o the Court that Defendantsmust be dentified before his suit can progressfurther" and ruling that it is "premature" o consider oinder); Motown Record Co., L.P. v.Does 1-252 at 3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 1,2004) (concluding hat oinder and other ssuesshouldbedeferredso that they "can be resolved n the ordinary courseof this litigation at the appropriatetime") (available or review in the appendix iled in conjunctionwith this Memorandum).13Amici's attempt o createa third requisite or joinder, seeAmici Br. at 13-14& n.4, conflictssquarelywith the aw in this Circuit. See,e.g.,Abraham v. Volkwagen of America, nc., 795F 2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986). Amici appear o concede,as hey must, hat Plaintiffs' claims satisfy hefirst requisite or joinder - they sharecommon indeedalmost dentical) issuesof law and act.

20

. ,I


25/26

"their connectionas upon their logical relationship." Moore v. New York Cotton Exch., 270 U.S.593,610 (1926);Blesedell,708 F. Supp.at 1422.

Rule 20 thus pennits all "'logically relatedclaims' by or againstdifferent parties o betried in the sameproceeding." Blesedell,708 F. Supp.at 1421;Mosley, 497 F.2d at 1333;7CharlesAlan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,Federal Practice & Procedure3d 1653,at 410 (2003) (Rule 20 ensureshat "all reasonably elatedclaims for relief by or againstdifferent parties" may be oined). The fact that claims againsteachDefendantmay involve"different factualunderpinnings"providesno basis,without more, or severingclaims. Puricelliv. CAN nsur. Co., 185F.R.D. 139, 142 N.D.N.Y 1999). If the Court determines hat t ispreferable o hold separaterials for eachDefendant, he FederalRules expresslyprovide theCourt with suchpower, ensuring hat claims canbe litigated efficiently, but tried separately.Fed.R. Civ. P. 42.

Plaintiffs' claims n this casesatisfy he requirements f Rule 20 becausehey ariseout ofa logically relatedseriesof transactions r occurrences. 4 All of Plaintiffs' claims against heDefendantsnvolve commonquestions f copyright aw and common actual questionsconcerning he operationof Cablevision's etwork and he Fast Track P2P network. EachDefendant n this casewas using he same nstrumentalities o commit the exact sameviolationof law. Moreover, he crux of Plaintiffs' Complaint s that Defendantsand othershaveparticipated n a commonscheme r patternof behavior,without which no individual Defendant

14 The two courtscited by amici that haveorderedor recommended everance f Plaintiffs'claims eacherredby effectively requiring Plaintiffs to allege hat all of Plaintiffs' claim arosefrom the same ransactionor occurrence,ather han a logically relatedseries of transactions roccurrences, sRule 20 pennits. SeeAmici Mem. Ex. 1 (decisionof judge in EasternDistrict ofPennsylvania everingcases ecausehe claims "did not result of the same ncident orincidents");Amici Mem. Ex. 3 (recommendation f magistrate n the Middle District of Floridabecause ed.R. Civ. P. "refers to the same ransactionand or occurrence ot to similartransactions r occurrences").21

.,."~


26/26

f!

would havebeenable o commit much (if any) of the nfringing activity that underliesPlaintiffs'Complaint. Plaintiffs' Complaint allegesexplicitly that eachDefendantusesan online mediadistribution system the P2Pnetwork) o distribute to and to download/rom other usersof thesamesystem including the other Defendants computer iles that contain copyrightedsoundrecordings. Compl.' 24. Seealso WhiteheadDecl. " 7, 16. Thus, amici are wrong to assertthat Defendantsare connected nly by their commonuseof the Internet. Defendants' oncertedactionsas usersof the Fast Track network provide the "logical relationship" hat clearlydistinguishes his case rom the hypotheticalsand he misjoinder cases pon which amici rely.

CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing easons,he Court shoulddeny JaneDoe's etter motion to quashand

reject he arguments aisedby amici.Respectfullysubmitted,

Dated: New York, New York Attorneys-wrA-dntiffs( ~.(l."" J :;;J) ~ By: ::j - U~\?("" J L.~If/~ { t \/ -t J. ChristopherensenJJ-1864)

JasonD. Sanders JS-2219)COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.1133Avenueof the AmericasNew York, New York 10036-6799Phone: 212) 790-9200Fax: (212) 575-0671ThomasJ. Perrelli (admittedpro hac vice)JENNER & BLOCK LLP601 ThirteenthStreet,WNSuite 1200SouthWashington,DC 20005Phone: 202) 639-6000Fax: (202) 639-6066

Documents

00610-20040422 Sony plaintiff opposition