## Facts

- Seventeen record companies sued forty anonymous Internet users (Does 1–40) for alleged unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted sound recordings via a peer-to-peer file-sharing network using an ISP.
- Plaintiffs asserted the Does made hundreds or thousands of copyrighted recordings available to others through shared folders linked to specific IP addresses.
- Because the alleged infringers used pseudonyms and IP addresses, plaintiffs sought expedited discovery to identify the subscribers associated with specified IP addresses, dates, and times.
- The court granted an ex parte order permitting a subpoena to the ISP for subscriber identifying information.
- After the ISP produced identifying data for many Does, several Doe defendants moved to quash the subpoena and to suppress or return the disclosed information, arguing First Amendment anonymity, privacy, lack of personal jurisdiction, misjoinder, and insufficient factual basis.

## Issues

1. Whether the motions to quash were moot after the ISP had already produced some subscriber information, and whether the court could order suppression or return.
2. Whether the First Amendment right to anonymous speech and association barred enforcement of an ISP subpoena seeking to identify alleged peer-to-peer copyright infringers.
3. What standard governs when a plaintiff may obtain identifying information about anonymous Internet users from an ISP in a copyright infringement action.
4. Whether alleged defects in personal jurisdiction, joinder, or the asserted evidentiary showing justified quashing the subpoena at the identification stage.

## Decision

- The court held the motions were not moot and that it retained authority to suppress or order return of improperly obtained information.
- The court denied the motions to quash and allowed use of the ISP subscriber information to identify and serve defendants.
- The court held the First Amendment did not bar disclosure because the asserted anonymity interest was outweighed by plaintiffs’ need to pursue apparently meritorious infringement claims.
- The court rejected or deferred objections based on personal jurisdiction and joinder as premature at the stage where plaintiffs were seeking identities necessary to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- A court may consider a motion to quash an ISP subpoena even after partial compliance and may order suppression or return if the information was improperly obtained.
- Anonymous Internet activity may receive some First Amendment protection, but copyright infringement is not protected speech; anonymity may be overcome to permit enforcement of valid intellectual property claims.
- In deciding whether to unmask anonymous Internet users through ISP discovery, courts weigh multiple factors, including:
  - Whether the plaintiff makes a concrete prima facie showing of actionable infringement.
  - The specificity and narrow tailoring of the discovery request.
  - The absence of alternative means to obtain the identifying information.
  - The centrality of the information to advancing the claim (including service and case progression).
  - The defendant’s expectation of privacy in the requested identifying information, considering the ISP relationship and the nature of the alleged conduct.
- Threshold defenses such as personal jurisdiction and joinder generally do not bar limited discovery aimed at identifying unknown defendants when the plaintiff otherwise satisfies the disclosure factors.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the ISP subpoena to stand and refused to shield anonymous peer-to-peer users from identification, holding that plaintiffs’ prima facie infringement showing and need for the information outweighed defendants’ asserted First Amendment and privacy interests under a structured multi-factor balancing test.


Sony Music Ent. Inc. v. Does 1–40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)