John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. John Doe Nos. 1-30
284 F.R.D. 185
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Wiley alleges Doe defendants used BitTorrent to copy and distribute seven Wiley works without authorization.
- The Complaint lists Schedule A with IPs, ISPs, works, dates, and alleged subscriber linkage to the IPs.
- Wiley sought ex parte subpoenas to ISPs to identify subscribers; Judge Swain granted subpoenas for Does 9-12 to Cablevision.
- Doe No. 9 moves to quash subpoena and for protective order, arguing confidentiality, irrelevance, improper joinder, venue, and lack of service.
- Wiley contends identifying information is needed to serve process; the court analyzes under Rule 45 and Sony Music five-factor test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena should be quashed under Rule 45. | Wiley argues Doe No. 9's identity is discoverable. | Doe No. 9 claims privacy and irrelevance; seeks protective order. | Quash denied; information ordered subject to protection not moot. |
| Whether Wiley's copyright infringement showing is prima facie sufficient. | Wiley shows ownership and specific infringing activity tied to IPs. | Doe No. 9 disputes link between IP and her actions. | Yes; prima facie showing established. |
| Whether there are alternative means to obtain the information. | No other practical means to identify subscribers. | No explicit alternative presented. | Absent alternatives; subpoena justified. |
| Whether the information is needed to advance Wiley's claim. | Identifying subscribers is central to service and litigation. | Defendant may not be the infringer; identity not necessary for suit. | Information central to proceeding. |
| Whether Doe No. 9 has a privacy interest that warrants protection. | Minimal privacy expectation due to ISP terms and usage. | Strong privacy protection and potential for misuse (K-Beech concern). | Privacy interest insufficient to shield identity; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sony Music Entm't Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (five-factor test for quashing ISP subpoenas)
- Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-16, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (First Amendment privacy limits in file-sharing context; five-factor framework)
- Arista Records v. Does 1-27, No. 11 Civ. 7627 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (judge's approach to anonymity and discovery in ISP subpoenas)
- Arista Records, LLC v. John Does 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirmed adoption of Sony five-factor framework)
- In re BitTorrent, 2012 WL 1570765 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (discussion of IP address limitations and privacy considerations)