EFF: 20041115 Arista-Memo

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAARISTA RECORDS, INC., )

et al.

, ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) No. 04-CV-2495-BBM)DOES 1-100, ))Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAEPUBLIC CITIZEN, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,AND ACLU OF GEORGIAIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................1

ARGUMENT......................................................................................................3

The Court Should Balance the Right to Anonymous Speech Against theNeed for Disclosure Before Permitting The Disclosure of Defendants’Identities..........................................................................................................4

Plaintiffs Should Be Required To Establish The Existence of PersonalJurisdiction Before Disclosure Is Permitted....................................................9

Plaintiffs Should Have to Justify Joinder of Defendants BeforeDisclosure Is Permitted..................................................................................11

Further Notice Must Be Provided To the Subpoena Targets........................15

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................15

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases

ALS Scan v. Digital Service Consultants

, 293 F.3d 707 (4

th

Cir. 2002)....................9

Baker v. F&F Investment

, 470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir.1972).............................................6

Bates v. City of Little Rock

, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)......................................................8

Bustler v. Beer Across America

, 83 F.Supp.2d 1261 (N.D.Ala. 2000)...................10

Cable/Home Comm. Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc.

, 902 F.2d 829 (11

th

Cir.1990)....................................................................................................................10

Carey v. Hume,

492 F.2d 631 (D.C. Cir. 1974).........................................................6

Cervantes v. Time,

464 F.2d 986 (8

th

Cir. 1972).......................................................6

Chemtall, Inc. v. Citi-Chem, Inc.

, 992 F.Supp. 1390 (S.D.Ga. 1998).....................10

Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com

, 185 FRD 573 (N.D.Cal. 1999).............7, 8, 9

Dendrite v. Doe

, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J.App. 2001)...................................................6, 9

Doe v. 2theMart.com

, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001)............................5

Doe v. Ashcroft

, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)..........................................5, 6

Ealy v. Littlejohn

, 569 F.2d 219 (5

th

Cir. 1978).........................................................6

Eldred v. Ashcroft

, 123 S.Ct. 769 (2003)...................................................................6

Harper & Row Pub. v. Nation Enterprises

, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).............................6

In re Verizon Internet Svces

, 257 F.Supp.2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003),

rev’d on other grounds

, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir.).......................................................................5

In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig.

, 2000 WL 1475705 (D.D.C.)..................................13

La Societe Metro Cash & Carry France v. Time Warner Cable,

2003 WL22962857 (Conn. Super.).......................................................................................7

of 00

Leave a Comment