Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. John and Jane Does 1 through 100
3:19-cv-03418
| N.D. Cal. | Aug 7, 2019Background
- Twitch sued multiple unnamed Doe defendants for coordinating the posting of racist, violent, pornographic, and infringing content on its streaming platform and for using bots to manipulate view counts.
- Twitch’s investigation identified Twitch usernames (e.g., “Skel”), linked Gmail/Hotmail addresses, thousands of IP addresses used to stream the content, and IPs geolocated to ISPs/cloud providers (Verizon, Comcast, Contina, Charter, Optimum, Suddenlink, OVH).
- Twitch alleges trademark infringement (use of TWITCH and GLITCH marks), breach of its Terms of Service, trespass to chattels, and fraud based on defendants’ conduct and misrepresentations.
- Twitch sought an ex parte order for expedited Rule 45 subpoenas to social-media companies, email providers, cloud hosts, and ISPs to obtain subscriber identity and related records to effect service.
- The court granted the application, authorized subpoenas (with the order attached), imposed a limited confidentiality/protective regime for the produced identifying information, and required omission of credit card/bank account requests from the subpoenas at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause exists for early/expedited discovery | Twitch: need to identify Doe defendants to serve process; investigation produced IPs, accounts, communications linking actors to content | Responding providers/unknown defendants: early discovery intrudes on privacy and may be premature | Court: Good cause found; expedited discovery granted because need outweighs prejudice |
| Whether Twitch identified unknown defendants with sufficient specificity | Twitch: produced account names, email addresses, IP addresses, ISP associations, coordination sites and evidence tying activity to Twitch servers | (No named defendants to contest specificity) Implicit: risk of misidentifying innocent subscribers | Court: Identification sufficient to show real persons/entities amenable to suit in district |
| Whether complaint can likely withstand a motion to dismiss | Twitch: alleged valid trademark registrations and unauthorized uses; alleged Terms-of-Service breach, trespass to chattels, and fraud with supporting facts | (No defendant briefed) Potential defenses include lack of particularized fraud or causation | Court: Claims adequately pleaded to survive dismissal at this stage |
| Whether produced subscriber data should be protected/confidential | Twitch: needs records to identify defendants but will use only to enforce rights; privacy concerns exist | ISPs/providers/Does: disclosure risks privacy and mis-identification; Doe defendants may wish anonymity | Court: Limited protective order — information confidential until Doe can seek anonymity; 30-day windows to challenge subpoenas; sealing permitted for anonymity requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (sets four-factor test for expedited discovery to identify Doe defendants)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test for jurisdiction when intentional acts are aimed at forum)
- Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (likelihood-of-confusion trademark standard)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) fraud particularity requirements)
- In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig., 263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (trespass-to-chattels framework in internet/computer access context)
- In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., 347 F. Supp. 3d 434 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (trespass and scope-of-consent principles)
- McCoy v. Southwest Airlines Co., 211 F.R.D. 381 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (Rule 26(c) protective-order authority)