Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/406231268/Darkspilver-Motion-to-Quash
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:12:57+00:00

Document:
Guarding the Parents' Honour--Deuteronomy 21.18-21.
5 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Inc.’s (“Watchtower”) subpoena to Reddit, Inc. (“Reddit”).
had in this action, oral argument of counsel, and such other matters as the Court may consider.
never survive a motion to dismiss.
22 relationships with friends and family.
29 forced to disclosed Doe’s information, Doe will stop posting on Reddit altogether.
4 not, and cannot, do so.
U.S. company to take action, Watchtower (also a U.S. entity) should be required to respect U.S.
19 can and should exercise its inherent power to quash subpoena.
A. Doe’s Need for Anonymity.
(Darkspilver) in Supp. Mot. Quash Subpoena to Reddit, Inc. Seeking Identify(“Doe Decl.”) ¶ 3.
information, and criticize harmful doctrines or practices. Doe Decl. ¶ 5.
5 and subreddits generally have their own rules and moderators for community discussion.
Watchtower served the subpoena at issue on Reddit on January 18, 2019 (“Subpoena”).
12 understands that Reddit is meeting and conferring with Watchtower’s counsel.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/what-is-reddit/ (published July 19, 2018).
23 and practices. Id. ¶ 9.
4 included that screenshot in a post on Reddit. Id.
19 demystify these concerns and potentially prevent regrettable decisions about data storage. Id.
C. The Harmful Effects of Forced Disclosure on Doe and Others.
Watchtower’s Subpoena has already stopped the flow of truthful information online.
27 unmasking Doe’s identity on Reddit, Doe’s silencing will become permanent. Id.
5 will likely be able to match that information to Doe’s membership information it has on file. Id.
will lead current Jehovah’s Witnesses to disregard, distance themselves, or shun Doe entirely. Id.
26 who participate in the same activities as members of their religion abroad.
company address as 520 3rd. Street, San Francisco, CA 94107).
2 Thereby Silence Religious Dissenters and Critics.
The First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech. Art of Living Found. v.
Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 249-50).
12 accused of trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair competition); Art of Living Found. v.
many other members of the public are interested.” Highfields Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F.
2 Supp. 2d 969, 974–75 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
the harm to Doe caused by disclosure would be irreparable.
18 evidence of registration for the Chart.
teaching ... and scholarship.’” Art of Living Found., 2011 WL 5444622, at *6 (quoting 17 U.S.C.
3 charlatan and the Church a dangerous cult”).
character of the use, including whether it is commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes.
transformative photos of barbie dolls constituted fair use rather than infringement).
future to reveal or punish past abuse.
5 as fair use because the first appearance of the artist’s expression has already occurred.” Seltzer v.
favor of fair use here.
12 with privacy law (including citations to relevant legal provisions) is not protected by copyright.
because Doe was hoping to show all the information the Jehovah’s Witness organization stored.
market harm). Watchtower has not and cannot meet that burden.
5 pressed to claim actual damage.
recognized that disclosure would have a chilling effect on the blogger as well as others. See id.
19 post at issue was a likely fair use, the court quashed the subpoena.
27 unmask an online speaker.
11 Times Corp., 208 F.R.D. 16, 17 (D.D.C. 2002).
emotional harm to Doe will be overwhelming.
25 will likely feel. See id.
28 freely without impairing personal relationships with those who remain believers.
2 the parties with information they need for litigation, not to impose extrajudicial penalties.
3 Watchtower’s subpoena should be quashed.
Here, a Party Seeks to Invoke U.S. Legal Process to Force a U.S.
9 for at least three reasons.
unmask online speakers when those speakers are citizens of or physically present in this country.
23 seeking make this Court’s consideration of the First Amendment essential.
2 Amendment protections); see also e.g., Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Authority, 293 F.R.D.
invoke First Amendment to seek access to deposition transcripts); United States v. James, 663 F.
of access to court documents under the First Amendment).
18 geographical origin of printed materials.
protections for freedom of the press “was to protect public access to information.”).
3 ensure that it meets this district’s well-established standard for piercing anonymous speech.
burden.” Jacobs v. Quinones, No. 1:10-CV-02349-AWI-JL, 2014 WL 5426323, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
23 determining motions to quash .”); Fernandez v. California Dep’t of Correction & Rehab., No.
24 2:11-CV-01125 MCE, 2014 WL 794332, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014) (citing id.).
clear that the claims would fail because the posts were lawful fair uses.
the issues.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)).
of dissenting and disaffiliated Jehovah’s Witnesses. See Moss Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.
26 impose on Doe and all who would benefit from access to Doe’s speech.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.