Source: http://www.internetlibrary.com/topics/subpoena.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:50:29+00:00

Document:
This section of the Internet Law Library contains court decisions addressing the legal obligations of Internet Service Providers and others to respond to subpoenas seeking the identity of anonymous individuals posting materials on their web site.
Declining to honor an order of an Indiana Superior Court, and reversing the decision of the court below, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a publicly-traded company may not, in support of a litigation commenced by that company anonymously in Indiana, issue a subpoena duces tecum to AOL in Virginia to obtain information concerning the identity of various individuals who posted allegedly defamatory remarks in Internet chat rooms. The court held that the plaintiff's conclusory allegations of economic harm were insufficient to permit it to proceed anonymously and accordingly declined to honor an order of the Indiana court in which the action was pending which permitted the plaintiff corporation to seek such information anonymously.
America Online, Inc. v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc.
Affirming the decision of the court below, the Virginia Supreme Court denies America Online's ("AOL") motion to quash, and directs AOL to comply with a subpoena duces tecum seeking information as to the identity of an individual who anonymously posted derogatory comments in an online message board about Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. ("Nam Tai"). The subpoena in question was issued by the Virginia courts in aid of a proceeding pending in the courts of the State of California, in which proceeding Nam Tai alleged that the anonymous Internet poster had violated California's Unfair Business Practice statutes. The Virginia Supreme Court determined that comity should be accorded the decision of the California court directing the issuance of the subpoena. In reaching this result, the court rejected AOL's claim that First Amendment concerns barred Nam Tai from obtaining the information in question.
Dendrite International v. John Does, et al.
Court denies plaintiff's application for the issuance of a subpoena and other process to permit it to obtain from the non-party Yahoo Inc. ("Yahoo") the identity of two individuals who posted anonymous messages on internet-based financial boards maintained by Yahoo. The court's decision was based, in part, on its determination that plaintiff had failed to adequately demonstrate the validity of the claims it sought to advance in its complaint against these John Doe defendants arising out of such postings.
John Doe v. 2Themart.Com Inc.
Court quashes subpoena served by corporation on information service provider seeking the identity of anonymous non-party posters of messages critical of the corporation. Corporation sought such information to aid it in establishing that the posting of these messages, and not the conduct of the corporation's officers, caused the stock price fluctuations complained of in a shareholders derivative class action lawsuit in which the corporation was a party.
Court holds that to obtain such information, in light of First Amendment concerns, "the party seeking the information must demonstrate, by a clear showing on the record, that four requirements are met: (1) the subpoena seeking the information was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose, (2) the information sought relates to a core claim or defense, (3) the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense, and (4) information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from any other source." Finding that the corporation failed to satisfy this "high burden," the Court quashed the subpoena.
Court holds that America Online Inc. ("AOL") must respond to a subpoena duces tecum calling for AOL to identify four AOL Internet service subscribers who allegedly anonymously posted defamatory statements and confidential insider information on the Internet. Court holds that such subpoenas are valid "when the court is satisfied by the pleadings or evidence supplied to [it] that the party requesting the subpoena has a legitimate, good faith basis to contend that it may be the victim of [actionable conduct] ... and the subpoenaed identity information is centrally needed to advance that claim."
Reversing the Court below, the Delaware Supreme Court holds that to obtain the identity of an anonymous online speaker for the purpose of pursuing a defamation action, the defamed party must first submit to the Court evidence of their validity of such a claim sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion. Requiring a plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a prima facie case strikes a more appropriate balance between the competing interests of free speech and an individual’s right to protect his reputation, than the “good faith” standard applied by the Trial Court. Under that rejected standard, the plaintiff need only show he had a good faith basis for asserting his claim to obtain the anonymous speaker’s identity.
La Society Metro Cash & Carry France v. Time Warner Cable et al.
Court grants bill of discovery, requiring ISP to disclose the identity of a subscriber who allegedly sent a defamatory, anonymous e-mail to employees of a French company. To obtain such discovery, the court required the French company to show that: (1) what it seeks to discover is material, necessary or needed to aid in proof of a claim asserted in an action brought or about to be brought; (2) there is probable cause to bring the claim, which must be shown by detailed facts; (3) the requested discovery is confined to facts material to the claim; and (4) there are no other adequate means of obtaining the requested discovery. Finding that the French company met this burden, the court granted the requested relief.
Federal Court denies plaintiff's ex parte application for leave to serve subpoenas to obtain the identity of an anonymous speaker who allegedly posted defamatory statements about plaintiff online. Plaintiff sought to serve such subpoenas on both the domain registrar Go Daddy and Domains By Proxy. The Federal Court dismissed the action, holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this suit because it only advanced state law claims against a John Doe defendant who's residence was unknown. The Court also denied plaintiff's application for discovery as to the identity of the anonymous speaker, as his statements about plaintiff were non-actionable statements of opinion, insufficient to give rise to a claim for defamation.
2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 681, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C., Jan. 21, 2003), reversed, 351 F. 3d 1229 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 19, 2003) cert. denied 125 S.Ct. 309 (2004).
Court holds that copyright holder has the right under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to compel service provider to produce information which identifies individual who allegedly transmitted infringing materials over service provider's network. Court accordingly grants motion by the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") to compel Verizon Internet Services ("Verizon") to comply with a subpoena, and produce information which will identify a Verizon customer who used KazaA to download MP3 files.
Reversing the court below, the D.C. Court of Appeals holds that a copyright holder may not, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), serve a subpoena seeking the identity of an individual who allegedly transmitted infringing materials over a P2P file sharing network, on the Internet Service Provider which provides that individual's connection to the Internet. The Court accordingly granted the motion of Verizon Internet Services ("Verizon") to quash subpoenas issued by the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") seeking information that would identify Verizon customers who, via a connection to the Internet provided by Verizon, used P2P networks to share MP3 files. The RIAA has sought to issue subpoenas under the DMCA, in part, because it could do so without the necessity of first commencing a litigation. The court's ruling obligates the RIAA either to commence such a litigation, or seek leave of the court, before serving such a subpoena on ISPs like Verizon.
Recording Industry Association of America v. Charter Communications Inc.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), section 17 U.S.C. Section 512 (h), does not permit copyright owners and their representatives to obtain and serve subpoenas on internet service providers to obtain personal information about an ISP’s subscribers who are alleged to be transmitting copyrighted works via the internet using so-called ‘peer to peer’ or ‘P2P’ file sharing computer programs, where the ISP acts solely as a conduit for the transmission of material by others. The text and structure of the DMCA require the ISP to be able both to locate and remove the allegedly infringing material before a subpoena can be issued against it. The Court based this holding on the requirements of the Act which mandate that a subpoena be accompanied by the notice described in section 512(c)(3)(A) of the DMCA. Because an ISP cannot remove such material when it acts as a mere conduit, such an ISP cannot be served with a subpoena under the DMCA. The First Circuit accordingly reversed the decision of the District Court below, and directed that the subpoenas at issue, seeking the identity of individuals who purportedly traded and made available MP3s via P2P programs such Kazaa, be quashed. In reaching this result, the First Circuit followed and found persuasive the reasoning of the DC Circuit court in RIAA v. Verizon, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir., 2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.