Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10803
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Digital Sin seeks expedited, cabined discovery from ISPs to identify infringers tied to 176 IP addresses related to its copyrighted Motion Picture.
- Court recognizes ex parte expedited discovery is increasingly common but raises concerns about privacy, joinder, and misidentification.
- Digital Sin alleges BitTorrent-based sharing in a single swarm led to multiple Doe defendants identified by IPs; CEG conducted infringement detection and compiled Exhibit A.
- ISPs may be restricted from disclosing subscriber identities absent a court Order due to 47 U.S.C. § 551(c); data loss risk motivates expedited relief.
- Court finds good cause exists for granting a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain identifying information, conditioned on a protective order to limit disclosure and address privacy concerns.
- The Court weighs joinder under Rule 20(a)(2) and ultimately declines severance at this stage, adopting a DigiProtect-based standard that a group sharing the same file in the same swarm can be joined; reserves right to revisit later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause supports expedited Rule 45 subpoenas | Digital Sin has prima facie infringement and needs fast IDs | Potential privacy risks and misidentification if many Does | Yes; good cause shown for expedited subpoenas under protective order |
| Whether a protective order adequately limits disclosure | Protect information and allow anonymous litigation if desired | Risk of coercion and harassment; need safeguards | Protective order warranted to treat information as confidential for a limited time |
| Whether joinder of 176 Does is proper under Rule 20(a) | Doe defendants are tied to same swarm and file | Joinder may be improper for numerous defendants nationwide | Joinder adopted for initial discovery; potential reconsideration later under circumstances |
| Whether personal jurisdiction is satisfied for Doe defendants | IP-based location supports jurisdiction in this district | Unknowns may challenge jurisdiction if facts shown otherwise | Court does not sever but will reassess if facts undermine jurisdiction at later stage |
| Whether expedited discovery should proceed without severance in copyright context | Efficiently protect rights and prevent loss of data | Ex parte process risks unfairness and misidentification | Expedited discovery allowed with protective order and monitoring constraints |
Key Cases Cited
- Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1,062, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.D.C. 2011) (expedited discovery considerations in Doe cases)
- Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (academy of swarming; Rule 20/20(a) analysis in BitTorrent context)
- Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-5,000, 818 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2011) (protective order and expedited discovery considerations)