Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Does
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25970
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Music Group sued anonymous Twitter users (@FakeUli and @NotUliBehringer) in the Western District of Washington alleging defamation and related claims; it sought expedited discovery to identify the Does.
- The Washington court granted early discovery (finding good cause); Music Group served subpoenas on Twitter (San Francisco) seeking identifying information (name, address, email, proxy).
- Twitter refused to produce without a court ruling and took no substantive position on whether disclosure was proper, but asked the forum court to apply the correct First Amendment standard.
- Music Group filed in this Northern District of California to compel compliance; it also asked this court to transfer the enforcement proceeding back to the issuing (Washington) court.
- The central legal question became whether the subpoenas unconstitutionally infringe the Doe defendants’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech, analyzed under the Highfields framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the enforcement motion should be transferred to the issuing court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) | Transfer to Washington is appropriate because underlying case is there and that court issued discovery | No exceptional circumstances; transfer would burden local nonparty and is unnecessary | Denied transfer — no exceptional circumstances to warrant transfer |
| Whether Music Group has a "real evidentiary basis" under Highfields for @NotUliBehringer | Statements include allegedly defamatory accusations (e.g., tax evasion) supporting discovery | Statements are mostly commercial criticism or one-off rants about the CEO; plaintiff lacks competent evidence of actionable statement about the company | Denied as to @NotUliBehringer — plaintiff failed Highfields first prong for actionable defamation of the company |
| Whether Music Group has a "real evidentiary basis" under Highfields for @FakeUli | Posts include per se defamatory assertions about the company (e.g., encouraging domestic violence, product design intent) | Some posts are commercial/parodic; context may show joking/ironic content; CEO-focused claims may not be "of and concerning" the company | Granted prong for @FakeUli in part — plaintiff showed a real evidentiary basis (but only for statements of/concern to the company) |
| Whether Highfields balancing favors disclosure (weighing plaintiff’s need vs. speakers’ First Amendment interest) | Plaintiffs need identity to pursue defamation claims and remedy harm | Disclosure would chill anonymous criticism; many statements are protected commercial or ironic speech; context undermines defamatory character | On balance, denied enforcement for both accounts — First Amendment interests outweigh plaintiff’s need; anonymous speech protected, given context (including comedic video) |
Key Cases Cited
- Highfields Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (articulates the two-step test for unmasking anonymous online speakers)
- In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011) (directs courts to choose standards based on the nature of the speech and discusses appropriate rigor)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizes First Amendment protection for anonymous speech)
- Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (most exacting unmasking test—summary-judgment-quality proof requirement)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (defamation requires statements be "of and concerning" the plaintiff and protects certain speech)
- Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers Union, Local 996, 302 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002) (statements must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff to support defamation)