Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarn Sharing Hash File AE340D0560129AFEE8D78CE07F2394C7 B5BC9C05
821 F. Supp. 2d 444
D. Mass.2011Background
- Liberty Media owns the copyright to the Motion Picture and sues 38 unknown defendants identified only by IP addresses for alleged BitTorrent-based infringement.
- Liberty Media sought to disclose subscriber information by subpoena to ISPs under a court-ordered early discovery process.
- Three defendants moved to quash the subpoenas: Doe 2, Unnumbered Doe, and Doe 15, raising claims related to prima facie proof, procedural issues, and joinder.
- The court granted the early discovery subpoenas, allowing disclosure of subscriber information with ISP notice and a 21‑day challenge period for subscribers.
- BitTorrent is explained as a peer-to-peer swarm where multiple users upload and download parts of a file, enabling rapid distribution of the Motion Picture.
- The court addressed whether the 38 Does could be joined, whether the subpoenas were properly issued and served, and whether anonymity should be maintained for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liberty has established a prima facie infringement claim | Liberty shows valid copyright and actual distribution by a swarm. | Evidence is too generalized and insufficiently particularized against individuals. | Liberty established a prima facie infringement claim. |
| Whether subpoenas were procedurally defective | Subpoenas were issued under court order and properly served with notice. | Subpoenas failed to allow reasonable compliance time and some targeted different districts. | Procedural objections lack standing; subpoenas are not shown to be improper at this stage. |
| Whether joinder of 38 anonymous defendants is proper | Does 1-38 participated in a common BitTorrent swarm and share common questions of law and fact. | Joinder is improper due to potential individual defenses and lack of commonality. | Joinder is proper at this stage due to common transactions and questions of law and fact. |
| Whether defendants may proceed anonymously and use pseudonyms | Public identities should be disclosed consistent with open judicial proceedings. | Defendants should be allowed anonymity to protect privacy and avoid harm. | Does 1-38 may not proceed anonymously; the court will consider privacy on individual motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F.Supp.2d 153 (D.Mass.2008) (infringement plausibly pled where material is available for distribution)
- West Coast Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-58, 275 F.R.D. 9 (D.D.C.2011) (permissive joinder for BitTorrent swarm defendants)
- First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-500, 276 F.R.D. 241 (N.D.Ill.2011) (privacy and anonymity considerations in ISP subpoenas)
- Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1,062, 770 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.D.C.2011) (joinder and anonymity considerations in ISP subpoenas)