FOLINO v. HINES
2:17-cv-01584
| W.D. Pa. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff John Folino filed suit under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act alleging thirteen unknown individuals accessed his Google e‑mail account without authorization and caused at least $5,000 in aggregate loss.
- The only information Folino has are the IP addresses used to access his account.
- Folino moved for expedited discovery to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on multiple ISPs (e.g., Verizon Business, Comcast/Time Warner, Armstrong, Atlantic Broadband, Verizon Wireless) to obtain subscriber-identifying information (name, billing address, phone number, service address).
- Folino asserted he cannot serve or proceed against the John Doe defendants without that identifying information.
- The ISPs can disclose subscriber records pursuant to a court order under the Cable Privacy Act, with notice to subscribers and an opportunity to move to quash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expedited discovery (Rule 45 subpoenas to ISPs) is appropriate to identify John Doe defendants | Folino: shows a viable CFAA claim, tailored requests, no other means to identify defendants, central need to proceed, minimal privacy concerns | ISPs/Does: (implicit) privacy concerns and right to contest via notice/motion to quash | Granted: court found the five-factor Arista framework satisfied and authorized subpoenas for limited identifying info |
Key Cases Cited
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (establishes factors for early discovery to identify John Doe defendants)