Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Document 9 - Motion To Quash

Document 9 - Motion To Quash

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7,609 |Likes:
Published by copyrightclerk
The Ledge Distribution, LLC v. Does 1-71, Case No. 2:13-cv-00330-RAJ-RSL
The Ledge Distribution, LLC v. Does 1-71, Case No. 2:13-cv-00330-RAJ-RSL

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: copyrightclerk on May 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 Various John Does Motion to Squash - Page 1
1234567891011121314151617181920212223
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
The Ledge Distribution, LLC,Plaintiff,vs.Does 1- 71,Defendants. No. 2:13-00330 MJP-RSLMotion to Squash Subpoenas NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:Friday May 3, 2013
Introductory Remarks
Plaintiff’s attorney has filed three nearly identical cases in this court. They are:Zambezia Film (PO), LLC., v. Does 1- 66Civil Action No. 13-00308 MJP-RSLZambezia Film (Ptv), LLC., v. Does 1 – 70Civil Action No. C13-00312 JLR-RSLZambezia Film (PO), LLC., v. Does 1- 66Civil Action No. 13-00308 MJP-RSLAll three cases have been assigned to the same judge for pretrial motions.This motion is being filed by defendants in all three cases. The relevant facts and legal issues behind the motion are identical in all three cases. This motion is being filed on behalf of at least oneJohn Doe defendant in each of the three cases.
Case 2:13-cv-00330-RAJ-RSL Document 9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 13
 
 Various John Does Motion to Squash - Page 2
1234567891011121314151617181920212223In the three cases the motion is identical except for the case caption. In the three cases, thedeclarations and exhibits are identical.
I. Relief Requested
Various Defendant John Does request any and all of the following relief 1. The Court should allow each individual John Doe to proceed anonymously.2. This case should be severed and all but the first John Doe Defendant should be dismissed for improper Joinder.3. A Protective Order should be issues preventing the Plaintiff from obtaining personalinformation about the Defendants.4. This case should be severed and all but the first John Doe Defendant should be dismissed for failure to pay the proper filing fees.5. Such other relief as this Court deems just.
II. Statement of Facts
The detailed facts are well set out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the Declarations of variousJohn Does and the Declaration of Gary Marshall which accompany this Motion.
III. Statement of Issues
1. The Court should allow each individual John Doe to proceed anonymously.2. This case should be severed and all but the first John Doe Defendant shouldbe dismissed for improper Joinder.3. Privacy Issues Outweigh the rights of the Plaintiff and a Protective Order should be issued.4. This case should be severed and all but the first John Doe Defendant shouldbe dismissed for failure to pay the proper filing fees.5. Defendants Have Standing to Bring This Motion Because They Has BeenNamed and Their Legal Rights are Affected.
Case 2:13-cv-00330-RAJ-RSL Document 9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 13
 
 Various John Does Motion to Squash - Page 3
1234567891011121314151617181920212223
IV. Evidence Relied Upon
This Motion is based upon the Plaintiff’s complaint, this Motion to Quash, and the Declarationof John Does, the Declaration of Gary Marshall, and the Defendants’ Request to Take Judicial Notice, which accompany this Motion.
V. Authority
1. The Court should allow each individual John Doe to proceed anonymously
The various John Does should be permitted to file this motion anonymously It is the only waythe defendants can file these motions without identifying themselves by name. See
 Doe v.2TheMart. Com Inc
., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (Dist. Court, WD Washington 2001). The courtconcludes at 1098 thatThe Internet is a truly democratic forum for communication. It allowsfor the free exchange of ideas at an unprecedented speed and scale.For this reason, the constitutional rights of Internet users, includingthe First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefullysafeguarded.Although that case dealt with a subpoena to a non-party, the same principles apply here, wherethe Defendants are seeking to appear anonymously only in the preliminary stages of litigation tochallenge the subpoena itself. Proceeding anonymously is the only method of not rendering mootthese proceedings by disclosing the very same information which Plaintiff seeks to obtain throughits improper subpoenas. Quashing the subpoena while requiring defendants to proceed in their ownnames would entirely defeat the purpose of the motion to quash. Accordingly, the various John DoeDefendants respectfully requests that the Court permit them to proceed anonymously.
Case 2:13-cv-00330-RAJ-RSL Document 9 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 13

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->