Various John Does Motion to Squash - Page 3
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.
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