appeal-isps-torrentfreak.pdf
|Views: 232
|Likes: 0
Published by torrentfreak
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
(Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled)
No. 12-7135IN THE UNITED STATESCOURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITAF HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DOES 1 –1,058,
Defendants
,and
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
et al
.,
Appellants
.On Appeal From an Order bythe U.S. District Court for the District of ColumbiaThe Honorable Beryl A. Howell, Judge Presiding(Case No. 1:12-cv-00048-BAH)
APPELLANTS’ JOINT REPLY BRIEF
Deanne E. MaynardMORRISON & FOERSTER
LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20006-1888Telephone: 202.887.1500DMaynard@mofo.comBenjamin J. FoxMORRISON & FOERSTER
LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000Los Angeles, California 90017-3543Telephone: 213.892.5200BFox@mofo.comFor Bright House Networks, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc. andVerizon Online LLC(Additional Appellants and Counsel Listed on Inside Page)
USCA Case #12-7135 Document #1462971 Filed: 10/24/2013 Page 1 of 40
Additional Appellants and Counsel
Bart W. HuffmanLOCKE LORD LLP100 Congress Avenue, Suite 300Austin, Texas 78701Telephone: (512) 305-4746Facsimile: (512) 391-4741BHuffman@lockelord.comHugh S. BalsamLOCKE LORD LLP111 South Wacker DriveChicago, IL 60606Telephone: (312) 443-0403Facsimile: (312) 896-6403HBalsam@lockelord.comAttorneys for Appellant SBC Internet Services, LLC,d/b/a AT&T Internet ServicesJohn D. Seiver Ronald G. LondonLeslie G. MoylanLisa B. ZychermanDAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800Washington, D.C. 20006Telephone: (202) 973-4200 johnseiver@dwt.comAttorneys for Appellant Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
USCA Case #12-7135 Document #1462971 Filed: 10/24/2013 Page 2 of 40
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
iINTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1ARGUMENT............................................................................................................3I.THE SUBPOENAS TO THE INTERNET SERVICEPROVIDERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUASHED BECAUSETHEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY A SHOWING OF GOODCAUSE AND IMPOSE UNDUE BURDENS ON THE ISPs............3A.The ISPs Have Standing to Object That Plaintiff’sSubpoenas, Taken Alone or Together, Impose anUndue Burden and Are Unsupported by Good Cause...............3B.The Record Makes Clear That the Information Sought by AF Holdings Will Not Be Used for a Proper Purpose..........6II.THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED LEGAL ERROR BYDECLINING TO DECIDE WHETHER PERSONALJURISDICTION EXISTS OVER THE 1,000-PLUS “DOES”...........8III.THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED LEGAL ERROR BYFAILING TO ADDRESS WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTSFOR JOINDER ARE SATISFIED AS A PREREQUISITE TOPERMITTING DISCOVERY OF THEISPs....................................11A.Coordinated Rulings by District Courts HaveMovedOverwhelmingly Towards RequiringSingle-Doe Lawsuits................................................................11B.1,000-Plus Doe Lawsuits Are Improper As aMatterofLaw..........................................................................15
USCA Case #12-7135 Document #1462971 Filed: 10/24/2013 Page 3 of 40
