Main Content

Main Content

Civil Procedure Fall 2014

Excerpt from Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain


Resist the urge to cheat and look up the real case!


Excerpt from
AF Holdings v. Does 1-1058
752 F.3d 990, 992-94 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted)


Appellee AF Holdings, a limited liability company formed in the Caribbean . . . , sued and then sought discovery regarding more than a thousand unknown individuals who it claimed had illegally shared a copyrighted pornographic film. This interlocutory appeal arises from a district court order granting AF Holdings's discovery requests. . . .


[AF Holdings is a group of lawyers who] acquire[] “several copyrights to pornographic movies,” then initiate[] massive “John Doe” copyright infringement lawsuits. These suits took advantage of judicial discovery procedures in order to identify persons who might possibly have downloaded certain pornographic films. Such individuals, although generally able to use the Internet anonymously, are, like all Internet users, linked to particular Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, a series of numbers assigned to each Internet service subscriber. Internet service providers like Appellants can use IP addresses to identify these underlying subscribers, but not necessarily the individuals actually accessing the Internet through the subscribers' connections at any given time. Confronted with these realities, [AF Holding’s] general approach was to identify certain unknown persons whose IP addresses were used to download pornographic films, sue them in gigantic multi-defendant suits that minimized filing fees, discover the identities of the persons to whom these IP address were assigned by serving subpoenas on the Internet service providers to which the addresses pertained, then negotiate settlements with the underlying subscribers—a “strategy [that] was highly successful because of statutory-copyright damages, the pornographic subject matter, and the high cost of litigation.”


If an identified defendant sought to actually litigate, [AF Holdings] would simply dismiss the case. . . . [O]f the more than one hundred cases that AF Holdings has initiated, none has proceeded to trial or resulted in any judgment in its favor other than by default. Nevertheless, [AF Holdings] made around $15 million in a little less than three years.


The present lawsuit is a quintessential example . . . . AF Holdings brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against 1,058 unnamed Does who it alleged had illegally downloaded and shared the pornographic film Popular Demand using a file-sharing service known as BitTorrent. As an attachment to its complaint, AF Holdings listed the 1,058 IP addresses assigned to those subscribers whose Internet connections had been used to share Popular Demand, along with the specific date and time at which it, using what it described as “sophisticated and proprietary peer-to-peer network forensic software,” had observed each defendant's allegedly infringing activity. AF Holdings also attached the purported assignment agreement through which it claims to have acquired the copyright to Popular Demand. . . .


Moving for leave to take immediate discovery, AF Holdings then sought to serve subpoenas on the five Internet service providers linked to the 1,058 IP addresses it had identified . . . . The district court granted the motion, authorizing the issuance of subpoenas compelling these providers to turn over the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of the underlying subscribers.


The providers refused to comply. Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A), which provides that a district court “must quash or modify a subpoena that ... subjects a person to undue burden,” they asserted that the administrative expense involved was necessarily an “undue burden” because AF Holdings had failed to establish that the court would have personal jurisdiction over the defendants or that venue would lie in this district. . . . The providers also argued that any burden was necessarily undue because AF Holdings had failed to provide any reason to think that joinder of these 1,058 defendants in one action was proper.


The district court rejected these arguments, holding that “considerations of personal jurisdiction and joinder are premature when discovery is sought before the plaintiff has named a defendant and the discovery is targeted to identify unknown individuals associated with the IP addresses.” But . . . the district court certified its order for immediate appeal.


The providers now reiterate the arguments they made in the district court—that the subpoenas are unduly burdensome because venue is improper, personal jurisdiction over these Doe defendants is lacking, and the defendants could not properly be joined together in one action.