I. INTR0B0CTI0N.......................................1 II. ARu0NENT .............................................2 A. PRECEBENTS 0F C00RTS ALL0WINu BISC0vERY T0 IBENTIFY AN0NYN00S BEFENBANTS...............................2 B. 0vERvIEW 0F C00NTERCLAIN PLAINTIFF'S ALLEuATI0NS ANB FACT0AL SB0WINuS.................................6 C. PLAINTIFF BAS SB0WN u00B CA0SE F0R TBE BISC0vERY ANB BAS NABE A PRINA FACIE SB0WINu TBAT C00NTERCLAIN BEFENBANT BIB CLAIN T0 SELL BIS BL0u RIuBTS, ANB BIB ENuAuE IN 0TBER ACTIvITIES ALLEuEB IN C00NTER CLAIN...........................7 III. C0NCL0SI0N.........................................8
iii
TABLE 0F A0TB0RITIES )B<8< Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescanuy.com, 18S F.R.B. S7S, S78-8u (N.B. Cal. 1999);....4 Bean v. Baibei, 9S1 F.2u 121u, 121S (11th Cii. 1992).................2 Entm't Tech. Coip. v. Walt Bisney Imagineeiing, No. Civ. A. uS- SS46, 2uuS WL 22S1944u, at *4 (E.B. Pa. 0ct. 2, 2uuS)..........................4 Equiuyne Coip. v. Boes 1-21, 279 F. Supp. 2u 481, 48S (B. Bel. 2uuS).........S uillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2u 6S7, 642 (9 th Cii. 198u) ...................S Inuepenuent Newspapeis, Inc. v. Biouie, 966 A.2u 4S2 (Nu. 2uu9)...........S Naclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2u 8S, 87 (7th Cii. 198u)...................S Nunz v. Paii, 7S8 F.2u 12S4, 12S7 (8th Cii. 198S).....................S Nuiphy v. uooiu, 44S F.Supp.2u 261, 266 (W.B.N.Y. 2uu6)..............2 Peioutka v. Stieng, 69S A.2u 1287, 1292 (Nu. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)............6 Qwest Comm. Int'l, Inc. v. WoiluQuest Netwoiks, Inc., 21S F.R.B. 418, 419 (B. Colo. 2uuS).............................................4 Rockei Ngmt. LLC v. }ohn Boes, No. uS-NC-SS 2uuS WL 22149S8u, *1-2, (N.B. Cal. 2uuS) )............................................4 Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 76S A.2u 2u9, 242 (Nu. Ct. Spec. App. 2uuu)........6 Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Election Am., Inc., 2u8 F.R.B. 27S, 27S-76 (N.B. Cal. 2uu2)..4 Shapiio v. Nassengill, 661 A.2u 2u2, 216 (Nu. Ct. Spec. App. 199S)...........6 0Nu Recoiuings v. Boes 1-4, 64 Feu. R. Seiv. Su (Callaghan) SuS (N.B. Cal. Naich 6, 2uu6) ..............................................4 0Nu Recoiuings, Inc. v. Boes 1-199, No. u4-u9S(CKK) (B.B.C. Naich 1u, 2uu4)....4 iv valentin v. Binkins, 121 F.Su 72, 7S-76 (2u Cii. 1997)...................2 Wakefielu v. Thompson, 177 F.Su 116u, 116S (9th Cii. 1999)..............2 Wainei Bios. Recoius, Inc. v. Boes 1-6, S27 F.Supp.2u 1, 2 (B.B.C. 2uu7)........S Yokohama Tiie Coip. v. Bealeis Tiie Supply, Inc., 2u2 F.R.B. 612, 61S-14 (B. Aiiz. 2uu1) ...............................................S
1 .-.*(/2%!. *+ D*&2'# /2% /!',*(&'&-# I. INTR0B0CTI0N Counteiclaim Plaintiff is a uefenuant in a copyiight infiingement case biought by Plaintiff William }ohn }oseph Boge III, Case No. HIHJK@;KLHMNOK-1, in this couit. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he puichaseu the "woilu book anu e-book iights" to a segment of a blog useu by Counteiclaim Plaintiff in his book, "Intentional Infliction." Boge fileu a BNCA takeuown uemanu on CieateSpace, the self-publishing company owneu by Amazon. CieateSpace complieu with the takeuown, although Boge nevei iuentifieu the name of the peison fiom whom he hau allegeuly puichaseu the iights, othei than by the pseuuonym "Paul Kienulei," an anonymous bloggei who opeiates a blog at thinkingmanszombie.woiupiess.com. Boge hau a peace oiuei against Counteiclaim Plaintiff until }une 14, 2u14 which foibaue contact with Boge, so Counteiclaim Plaintiff was unable to ask Boge anything about the allegeu puichase. Counteiclaim Plaintiff was able to ask Counteiclaim Befenuant "Paul Kienulei," but he iefuseu to pioviue any infoimation. When Boge fileu his copyiight infiingement suit on Nay 27, 2u14 anu this Couit issueu a Summons to Counteiclaim Plaintiff on Nay 29, 2u14, Counteiclaim Plaintiff ueciueu to file his counteiclaim against Boge, as well as two othei counteiclaim uefenuants. 0ne of these uefenuants iemains anonymous. The only way foi Counteiclaim Plaintiff to ueteimine the Counteiclaim Befenuant's actual name is fiom the non paity Woiupiess.com which hosts "Paul Kienulei's" blog, anu fiom non-paity Twittei, which Counteiclaim Befenuant uses 2 unuei the name "biainsifoou." Accoiuingly, Counteiclaim Plaintiff seeks leave of Couit to seive limiteu uiscoveiy piioi to a Rule 26(4) confeience on the non-paity Woiupiess.com anu Twittei solely to ueteimine the tiue iuentity of the anonymous bloggei "Paul Kienulei" who uses the name biainsifoou on Twittei. If the Couit giants this Notion, Counteiclaim Plaintiff will seive subpoenas on Woiupiess.com anu Twittei iequesting the iuentifying infoimation. Twittei anu Woiupiess.com will have the oppoitunity to notify theii subsciibei than this infoimation is being sought, anu Counteiclaim Befenuant will have the oppoitunity to iaise any objections befoie this Couit piioi to the ietuin uate of the subpoena.
II. ARu0NENT A. PRECEBENTS 0F C00RTS ALL0WINu BISC0vERY T0 IBENTIFY AN0NYN00S BEFENBANTS Couits ioutinely allow uiscoveiy to iuentify "Boe" uefenuants. See, e.g., Nuiphy v. uooiu, 44S F.Supp.2u 261, 266 (W.B.N.Y. 2uu6) (in situations wheie the iuentity of allegeu uefenuants may not be known piioi to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff shoulu have an oppoitunity to puisue uiscoveiy to iuentify the unknown uefenuants); Wakefielu v. Thompson, 177 F.Su 116u, 116S (9th Cii. 1999) (eiioi to uismiss unnameu uefenuants given possibility that iuentity coulu be asceitaineu thiough uiscoveiy); valentin v. Binkins, 121 F.Su 72, 7S-76 (2u Cii. 1997) (plaintiff shoulu have been peimitteu to conuuct uiscoveiy to ieveal iuentity of uefenuant); Bean v. Baibei, 9S1 F.2u 121u, 121S (11th Cii. 1992) (eiioi to ueny plaintiff's motion to join }ohn Boe uefenuant wheie iuentity of }ohn Boe coulu have S been ueteimineu thiough uiscoveiy); Nunz v. Paii, 7S8 F.2u 12S4, 12S7 (8th Cii. 198S) (eiioi to uismiss claim meiely because uefenuant was unnameu; "Rathei than uismissing the claim, the couit shoulu have oiueieu uisclosuie of 0fficei Boe's iuentity"); uillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2u 6S7, 642 (9 th Cii. 198u) ("wheie the iuentity of allegeu uefenuants |aie notj known piioi to the filing of a complaint . . . the plaintiff shoulu be given an oppoitunity thiough uiscoveiy to iuentify the unknown uefenuants"); Naclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2u 8S, 87 (7th Cii. 198u) (wheie "paity is ignoiant of uefenuants' tiue iuentity . . . plaintiff shoulu have been peimitteu to obtain theii iuentity thiough limiteu uiscoveiy"); Equiuyne Coip. v. Boes 1-21, 279 F. Supp. 2u 481, 48S (B. Bel. 2uuS) (allowing pie-Rule 26 confeience uiscoveiy fiom ISPs to obtain iuentities of useis anonymously posting messages on message boaius). In similai copyiight infiingement cases biought by motion pictuie stuuios anu iecoiu companies against Boe uefenuants, couits have consistently gianteu plaintiffs' motions foi leave to take expeuiteu uiscoveiy to seive subpoenas on ISPs to obtain the iuentities of Boe Befenuants piioi to a Rule 26 confeience. See Wainei Bios. Recoius, Inc. v. Boes 1-6, S27 F.Supp.2u 1, 2 (B.B.C. 2uu7) (allowing plaintiffs to seive a Rule 4S subpoena upon ueoigetown 0niveisity to obtain the tiue iuentity of each Boe uefenuant, incluuing each uefenuant's tiue name, cuiient anu peimanent auuiesses anu telephone numbeis, email auuiess, anu Neuia Access Contiol ("NAC") auuiess) (citing Nemoianuum 0pinion anu 0iuei, 0Nu Recoiuings, Inc. v. Boes 1-199, No. u4-u9S(CKK) (B.B.C. Naich 1u, 2uu4); 0iuei, 0Nu Recoiuings v. Boes 1-4, 64 Feu. R. Seiv. Su (Callaghan) SuS (N.B. Cal. Naich 6, 2uu6)). In fact, foi the past few yeais, feueial uistiict couits thioughout the countiy 4 have gianteu expeuiteu uiscoveiy in Boe Befenuant lawsuits that aie factually similai, if not iuentical, to the instant lawsuit.2 In these citeu cases anu otheis like them, copyiight holuei plaintiffs have obtaineu the iuentities of P2P netwoik useis fiom ISPs thiough expeuiteu uiscoveiy using infoimation similai to that gatheieu by Plaintiff in the instant case, anu they have useu that infoimation as the basis foi theii pioposeu subpoenas to these ISPs. Couits consiuei the following factois when gianting motions foi expeuiteu uiscoveiy to iuentify anonymous Inteinet useis: (1) whethei the plaintiff can iuentify the missing paity with sufficient specificity such that the Couit can ueteimine that uefenuant is a ieal peison oi entity who coulu be sueu in feueial couit; (2) all pievious steps taken by the plaintiff to iuentify the Boe Befenuant; anu (S) whethei the plaintiff's suit coulu withstanu a motion to uismiss. Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescanuy.com, 18S F.R.B. S7S, S78-8u (N.B. Cal. 1999); see also Rockei Ngmt. LLC v. }ohn Boes, No. uS-NC-SS 2uuS WL 22149S8u, *1-2, (N.B. Cal. 2uuS) (applying Seescanuy.com stanuaiu to iuentify peisons who posteu libelous statements on Yahoo! Nessage boaiu; uenying iequest foi expeuiteu uiscoveiy wheie the postings in question weie not libelous). Plaintiff heie is able to uemonstiate each one of these factois. 0veiall, couits have wiue uiscietion in uiscoveiy matteis anu have also alloweu expeuiteu uiscoveiy when "goou cause" is shown. See Wainei Bios. Recoius, Inc. v. Boes 1-6, S27 F.Supp.2u 1, 2 (B.B.C. 2uu7); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Election Am., Inc., 2u8 F.R.B. 27S, 27S-76 (N.B. Cal. 2uu2); Qwest Comm. Int'l, Inc. v. WoiluQuest Netwoiks, Inc., 21S F.R.B. 418, 419 (B. Colo. 2uuS); Entm't Tech. Coip. v. Walt Bisney Imagineeiing, No. Civ. A. uS- SS46, 2uuS WL 22S1944u, at *4 (E.B. Pa. S 0ct. 2, 2uuS) (applying a ieasonableness stanuaiu: "a uistiict couit shoulu ueciue a motion foi expeuiteu uiscoveiy on the entiiety of the iecoiu to uate anu the ieasonableness of the iequest in light of all of the suiiounuing ciicumstances") (quotations omitteu); Yokohama Tiie Coip. v. Bealeis Tiie Supply, Inc., 2u2 F.R.B. 612, 61S-14 (B. Aiiz. 2uu1) (applying a goou cause stanuaiu). Recently, in Inuepenuent Newspapeis, Inc. v. Biouie, 966 A.2u 4S2 (Nu. 2uu9). the Naiylanu Couit of Appeals auopteu a five-step fiamewoik foi tiial couits to employ befoie issuing an oiuei compelling the uisclosuie of iuentifying infoimation fiist iequiieu to make a piima facie case foi uefamation anu must then satisfy a balancing test that weighs the stiength of hei case against the uefenuant's iight to anonymity. Yet Fiist Amenument uoctiine alieauy incluues balancing to piotect the most impoitant type of anonymous speech speech iegaiuing matteis of public concein. Because the !"#$%& fiamewoik incoipoiates this piotection in the piima facie case iequiiement, the final balancing test is unnecessaiy. The couit's appioach is also potentially oveipiotective of anonymous speech anu may encouiage moie huitful speech by uecieasing accountability. Although the !"#$%& couit uiu not mention the publicpiivate uistinction in its uecision, the five-pait piocess the couit put foiwaiu uoes incoipoiate the uistinction at the fouith step: the iequiiement that the plaintiff make out a piima facie case. The piima facie stanuaiu iequiies the plaintiff to show "(H) that the uefenuant maue a uefamatoiy statement to a thiiu peison, (Y) that the statement was false, (O) that the uefenuant was legally at fault in making the statement, anu (J) that the plaintiff theieby suffeieu haim."S1 The uistinction between public anu piivate figuies is incluueu in 6 the thiiu piong, iequiiing a plaintiff to show that the uefenuant was "legally at fault." Aftei Sullivan, a uefenuant is legally at fault foi uefaming a public figuie only if the plaintiff can uemonstiate actual malice. By contiast, theie is no actual malice iequiiement if the plaintiff is a piivate inuiviuual. ueitz v. Robeit Welch, Inc., 418 0.S. S2S, SS1 (1974) at S48 ("0ui accommouation of the competing values at stake in uefamation suits by piivate inuiviuuals allows the States to impose liability . . . on a less uemanuing showing than that iequiieu by New Yoik Times."). Naiylanu couits alieauy iecognize that the iequiiements foi making out a piima facie case uiffei uepenuing upon the status of the plaintiff as a public oi piivate figuie. See Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 76S A.2u 2u9, 242 (Nu. Ct. Spec. App. 2uuu) (uefining the piima facie stanuaiu "when the plaintiff is not a public figuie," anu noting that "|tjhe 'fault' element of the calculus may be baseu eithei on negligence oi actual malice" (emphasis auueu)); Peioutka v. Stieng, 69S A.2u 1287, 1292 (Nu. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (uefining the piima facie stanuaiu "|ijn a case involving a plaintiff who is not a public figuie" (quoting Shapiio v. Nassengill, 661 A.2u 2u2, 216 (Nu. Ct. Spec. App. 199S))).
B. 0vERvIEW 0F C00NTERCLAIN PLAINTIFF'S ALLEuATI0NS ANB FACT0AL SB0WINuS As allegeu in the counteiclaim in the instant suit, Counteiclaim Befenuant alleges he "solu" the "woilu book anu e-book iights" to a segment of a blog post he placeu on his Woiupiess.com blog, "The Thinking Nan's Zombie." This allegeu tiansaction took place on Apiil Su, 2u14, seven uays aftei Counteiclaim Plaintiff 7 self-publisheu his book "Intentional Infliction" on CieateSpace anu subsequently on Amazon. Counteiclaim Plaintiff was legally piohibiteu fiom asking the peison to whom Counteiclaim Befenuant claims he solu the "iights" as that peison hau, at the time, a peace oiuei in place against the Counteiclaim Plaintiff piohibiting contact of any kinu. Seveial attempts to get the infoimation fiom Counteiclaim Befenuant pioveu unsuccessful. As also allegeu in the counteiclaim, Counteiclaim Befenuant has been engageu in the systematic haiassment, uefamation, libel anu intentional infliction of emotional uistiess levieu at Counteiclaim Plaintiff, uespite seveial "cease anu uesist" uemanus maue by Counteiclaim Plaintiff C. PLAINTIFF BAS SB0WN u00B CA0SE F0R TBE BISC0vERY ANB BAS NABE A PRINA FACIE SB0WINu TBAT C00NTERCLAIN BEFENBANT BIB CLAIN T0 SELL BIS BL0u RIuBTS T0 WILLIAN }0BN }0SPEB B0uE III, ANB BIB C0NNITT TBE ACTS ALLEuEB IN C00NTERCLAIN PLAINTIFF'S C00NTER CLAIN. Fiist, the Counteiclaim Plaintiff has ueteimineu that the Counteiclaim Befenuant "Paul Kienulei" is the piopiietoi of the blog, "Thinking Nan's Zombie," hosteu by Woiupiess.com anu is the holuei of the name biainsifoou on Twittei. Thus, Counteiclaim Plaintiff can show that Counteiclaim Befenuant is a "ieal peison" whose name is known to the ISP anu who can be sueu in feueial couit. Seconu, Counteiclaim Plaintiff has specifically iuentifieu the othei measuies he has taken to iuentify Counteiclaim Befenuant, who iefuses to comply. Theiefoie, 8 Counteiclaim Plaintiff has obtaineu all the infoimation he can about the Counteiclaim Befenuant without uiscoveiy fiom Woiupiess.com anu Twittei. Thiiu, Counteiclaim Plaintiff has asseiteu a piima facie claim that not only has Counteiclaim Befenuant allegeu he "solu" the "woilu book anu e-book iights" to the poition of the Thinking Nan's Zombie blog to which William }ohn }oseph Boge III now lays claim, anu who now biings the instant suit against Counteiclaim Plaintiff, but that Counteiclaim Befenuant has engageu in a couise of uefamation, libel, intentional infliction of emotional uistiess anu haiassment as allegeu in the countei claim. Beie, goou cause exists because some Inteinet Seivice Pioviueis eiase theii usei uata aftei a peiiou of time anu Counteiclaim Plaintiff will be unable to puisue his countei claim against this peison unless he can iuentify the Counteiclaim Plaintiff. Wheie "physical eviuence may be consumeu oi uestioyeu with the passage of time, theieby uisauvantaging one oi moie paities to the litigation," goou cause foi uiscoveiy befoie the Rule 26 confeience exists. Qwest Comm., 21S F.R.B. at 419; see also Pou-Neis, LLC v. Noithein Feeu & Bean of Luceine LLC, 2u4 F.R.B. 67S, 676 (B. Colo. 2uu2) (allowing uiscoveiy piioi to Rule 26 confeience to inspect items in uefenuant's possession because items might no longei be available foi inspection if uiscoveiy pioceeueu in the noimal couise).
III. C0NCL0SI0N Foi the foiegoing ieasons, Counteiclaim Plaintiff iespectfully submits that the Couit shoulu giant the Notion foi Leave to Take Biscoveiy Piioi to Rule 26 9 Confeience anu entei an 0iuei substantially in the foim of the attacheu Pioposeu 0iuei. Plaintiff iequests peimission to seive a Rule 4S subpoena on Twittei anu Woiupiess.com, which it has iuentifieu as of this uate, anu those it iuentifies in the futuie, so that the they can uivulge the tiue name, auuiess, telephone numbei, e- mail auuiess of the Counteiclaim Befenuant that Plaintiff has iuentifieu to uate, anu those it iuentifies in the futuie uuiing the couise of this litigation. To the extent that any ISP, in tuin, iuentifies a uiffeient entity as the ISP pioviuing netwoik access anu online seivices to the Counteiclaim Befenuants, Coounteiclaim Plaintiff also seeks leave to seive, on any such latei iuentifieu ISP, limiteu uiscoveiy sufficient to iuentify the Boe Befenuant piioi to the Rule 26 confeience. Plaintiff will only use this infoimation to piosecute its countei claims.
%/'-%I }une S, 2u14
Respectfully submitteu,
________________________________________________________ William N. Schmalfelut, '"# )& 66S6 Washington Blvu., #71 Elkiiuge, Naiylanu 21u7S bschmalfelutcomcast.net 41u-2u6-96S7 (telephone)