Did your friend download the movie as alleged? Or are they truly innocent? My answer depends on that fact.

That is interesting. Thanks for the link.

I just looked on the docket, and somebody did file one of those DIY motions to quash. As I suspected, the motion was denied.

In fact, several motions to quash were denied today:

“ORDERED that the motions to quash subpoena filed by Randy Ansell [Dkt. # 15], William Wright [Dkt. # 20], Elise Buel [Dkt. # 21], and John Doe [Dkt. # 35] are DENIED”

It’s interesting that the Judge is ordering USCG to show cause why the uncovered defendants should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. USCG is just going to dismiss the defendants and refile anyway, so this doesn’t really get the defendants much. They’re still going to receive a settlement offer in the mail once their identities are made known to USCG, and they still are likely to have a new suit filed against them in the proper jurisdiction if they don’t settle. The order today changes nothing as far as I can tell.

I’m off to read Judge Collyer’s complete order. I’ll report back if there’s anything interesting in it.

I read through that Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motions to Dismiss, and that quote you’re pointing to is taken from the http://whatismyipaddress.com/ website.

Plaintiff’s Opposition: http://www.scribd.com/full/38152403?access_key=key-20ldzba56a26m0ubegoy

Look at the whole quote:

Similarly here, the moving Doe Defendants have not established that their techniques conclusively establish the location of any particular Doe Defendant. In fact, the website cited in the omnibus motion http://whatismyipaddress.com/) provides the following disclaimer when a user clicks on ?Additional IP Details?: ?This information should not be used for emergency purposes, trying to find someone?s exact physical address, or other purposes that would require 100% accuracy.? (emphasis added). Additionally, that very same website has a page dedicated ?How accurate is GeoLocation?? which states: ?Determining the physical location down to a city or ZIP code, however, is more difficult and less accurate because there is no official source for the information, users sometimes share IP addresses and Internet service providers often base IP addresses in a city where the company is basing operations. Accuracy rates on deriving a city from an IP address fluctuate between 50 and 80 percent, according to DNS Stuff, a Massachusetts-based DNS and networking tools firm.? See http://whatismyipaddress.com/geolocation-accuracy.

All they are saying is that it doesn’t make sense for the plaintiff to use the IP addresses to try and guess the defendants’ jurisdictions before filing since the IP addresses are not 100% accurate. The very website the defendants’ counsel said plaintiff could have used has a warning about how inaccurate it is. The part about users sharing IP addresses is of no help to defendants at this point of the proceedings. That sort of information could be helpful later when the defendants get to mount their defense, but for now it gets them nothing.

I think more importantly, Plaintiff’s Opposition explains why these motions to dismiss are all going to fail. Any one reason listed is sufficient to deny these motions. Just like the judge has been denying all of the other motions, she will now be denying all of these motions to dismiss. The simple fact is that at this point of the proceedings, the motions to dismiss are premature. Read Plaintiff’s Opposition for all the reasons why.

Let’s review what’s happened:

(1) Improper Joinder: EFF and others argued that the defendants should be severed or dismissed for misjoinder. USCG wrote a memo showing cause why they shouldn’t be severed or dismissed and the judge agreed. All motions arguing misjoinder are denied.

(2) Motions to Quash: Several defendants bought the DIY motion to quash from Affinity Law and filed them. Other defendants joined into an omnibus motion written by a group of lawyers. All of these motions to quash argued jurisdiction which is a non-starter. The whole point of discovery is to determine jurisdiction. All motions to quash are denied.

(3) Motions for Protective Order: Several defendants also moved to proceed anonymously. The judge says that none of the defendants have a cognizable claim of privacy. All motions for protective order are denied.

(4) Motions to Dismiss: Several defendants have moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The judge has not yet ruled on any of these motions, but local rules dictate that USCG file a response within a short period of time, which they did. I linked to USCG’s response above. My prediction is that the judge will deny all of the motions to dismiss either this week or next.

It’s really obvious that the defendants are just trying to get out of having their information revealed to USCG by their ISP. The simple reality is that there’s no way to stop it.