|
|
Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute.
It was a subpoena, issued by an attorney, not a court order. Verizon was responding to a subpoena, not a court order. The only court order at the time was an order permitting the attorneys to serve subpoenas.
It is not a "sign of respect" to provide responses to a subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena is pending; it is a "sign of contempt".
I was under the impression that we all knew that IP addresses mean shit when trying to identify a person....
Most of us do know that, but plaintiff's lawyers are hoping that the judges are among those who don't know.
If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?
It's based on a single BitTorrent download. I don't know the technology by which they claim to have identified the account.
Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things. The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?". Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?
Certainly in this case yes, where (a) the information is private confidential information of the subscriber, (b) Verizon has notified the subscriber that the information will be turned over on May 12th in the absence of a motion to quash, and (c) there is a pending motion to quash.
And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from?
He or she is one of the John Does. He was notified by Verizon of the subpoena, and of his right to make a motion to quash, which he did, in this case, exercise.
And why were they able to file a motion to quash?
Why not?
Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after?
Prior to the information being turned over, he was notified by Verizon that it would be turned over on May 12th unless he filed a motion to quash.
Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash?
I don't know for sure if Verizon knew, but it is hard to imagine any set of circumstances under which it did not know. If it did not know, then plaintiff's counsel acted in an extremely inappropriate manner. But it is much more likely that Verizon did know.
Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?
Yes it absolutely knew that. It sent him or her a letter telling him or her that it would reveal his or her identity in response to the subpoena on May 12th.
But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it. Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.
In this case Verizon undoubtedly did notify the John Does that it would turn over the information on May 12th. The John Doe quite properly made the motion to quash well in advance of that date, back in April. Verizon had absolutely no business turning over the documents on May 7th. If I were the judge, I would be calling Verizon in on the carpet.
Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.
Actually just a single copy of a single low budget movie
The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence.
... if it's appropriate to turn it over
The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.
Presidency: The greased pig in the field game of American politics. -- Ambrose Bierce