v. Reddit, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Hixson re #16 Motion to Compel, #17 Motion for Joinder. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE SUBPOENA TO:

8

REDDIT, INC.

Case No. 24-mc-80005-TSH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

9
10

Re: Dkt. No. 1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

Voltage Holdings, LLC and Screen Media Ventures, LLC move this Court to grant an

14
15

order compelling Reddit, Inc. to produce documents in response to a subpoena issued in the

16

bankruptcy matter In re: Frontier Commc’ns Corp., Case No. 20-22476-MG, in the Bankruptcy

17

Court for the Southern District of New York. ECF No. 1.1 Reddit has filed an opposition (ECF

18

No. 20) and Movants filed a reply (ECF No. 21). The undersigned finds this matter suitable for

19

disposition without oral argument and VACATES the February 15, 2024 hearing. See Civ. L.R.

20

7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this

21

case, the Court DENYING the motion for the following reasons.

22

II.

BACKGROUND

23

On April 14, 2020, Frontier Communications Corporation filed a voluntary petition for

24

Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Bankr. Case No. 20-22476-rdd, Bankr. Case ECF No. 1. Movants are

25

movie companies that filed proofs of claim against Frontier for copyright infringement of their

26
27
28

1

Laundry Films, Inc., Killing Link Distribution, LLC, Family of the Year Productions, LLC, who
are claimants in the underlying bankruptcy action, have filed a notice of joinder to movants’
motion. ECF No. 17.

1

movies. On November 6, 2023, counsel for Frontier and Movants submitted a joint report

2

addressing whether the bankruptcy court should authorize the issuance of subpoenas that require

3

Frontier to disclose subscribers who allegedly infringed Movants’ copyrights. Bank. Case ECF

4

No. 2227. On December 1 the bankruptcy court ruled that Movants had established good cause to

5

require Frontier to disclose the alleged infringing subscribers’ information. Bank. Case ECF No.

6

2233.

7
8

Within those communities, called “subreddits,” users gather to discuss shared interests. Id. Users

9

generally participate on the platform pseudonymously, and Reddit does not require that they use or

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Reddit is a community of online communities. Schottlaender Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 20-2.

provide Reddit with their legal names or addresses. Id.
On Dec. 17, 2023, Movants served a subpoena to Reddit requesting “IP address log

12

information from 1/1/2017 to present for users: ‘Gibson125T’; ‘Sankerin’; ‘Old_Package540’,

13

‘Arceist_Justin’; ‘ZeroHart’; ‘Cyb3rR3b0rn’”. Mot., Ex. 1. The subpoena seeks login

14

information for certain Reddit users “who boasted of using the service of the Internet service

15

provider Frontier Communications for piracy on Reddit’s platform.” Mot. at 2-3. After Reddit

16

served objections, id., Ex. 2, Movants filed the present motion on January 9, 2024,

17
18

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of non-parties. A party serving a

19

subpoena may, “on notice to the commanded person, . . . move the court for the district where

20

compliance is required for an order compelling production.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). The

21

scope of allowable discovery under Rule 45 is the same as the scope of discovery permitted under

22

Rule 26(b). Beaver Cty. Employers Ret. Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 3162218, at

23

*2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory comm’s note (1970); Fed. R. Civ.

24

P. 34(a)). Rule 26 permits discovery “regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any

25

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case considering the importance of

26

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant

27

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and

28

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.
2

1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The Court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: “(i) the

3

discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other

4

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking

5

discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii)

6

the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

26(b)(2)(C). Rule 45 further provides that “the court for the district where compliance is required

8

must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires

9

a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure

10

of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person

11

to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A).

12

IV.

DISCUSSION

13

Movants divide the Reddit user comments into two categories: “(i) Comments that

14

establish that Frontier has not reasonably implemented a policy for terminating repeat infringers

15

sufficient for a safe harbor affirmative defense as required by 17 U.S.C. § 512; and (ii) Comments

16

that establish that the ability to freely pirate without consequence was a draw to becoming a

17

subscriber of Frontier and/or subscribers are motivated to use Frontier’s service for pirating

18

content without consequence.” Mot. at 6. In support of their request, Movants provide the

19

following Reddit posts:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In the Reddit discussion forum dedicated explicitly to “Piracy”,
Reddit user “Gibson125T” admitted that “From may 7th up until
about a week ago, I got a total of 44 emails from frontier about
downloading torrents and that it could terminate service. They
haven't yet. And I kinda feel like if they didn't do it after 44 emails.
That they won’t…”
***
In a Reddit discussion forum “Frontierfios”, Reddit user
“Old_Package540” admitted, “I torrent every once in a while, been
getting dmca notices quite often. Has anyone been shut off because
of them or is it all just threats?”
***
In the Reddit “Piracy” forum, Reddit user "Arceist_Justin" admitted,
“Been using Frontier DSL for years. Despite the sh*tty internet, they
3

1

didn't give a sh*t what I downloaded. But I download ONE game just
for screenshots and Comcast throws me into a legal battle.”

2

***

3

In the Reddit “Frontierfios” forum, Reddit user "ZeroHart" states that
Frontier was terminating his account but failed to send him/her any
copy of at least 10 notices that were sent to Frontier concerning piracy
at her/his account.

4
5

***

6

In the Reddit “Piracy” forum, Reddit user"Cyb3rR3b0rn" admits to
using Frontier’s service to pirate from the notorious piracy websites
1337x and PirateBay and that “I've been torrenting unprotected for
like a decade and never gotten [a DMCA notice]”.

7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Id. at 6-8. Movants argue the information they seek is relevant and proportional to the needs of

10

the case because “they support Movants’ assertion that the ability to pirate content efficiently

11

without any consequences is a draw for becoming a Frontier subscriber (an element of vicarious

12

liability) and that Frontier does not have an effective policy for terminating repeat infringers

13

(rebutting Frontier’s purported DMCA safe harbor).” Id. at 9.
Reddit argues the Court should deny the motion because it is an unmasking subpoena,

14
15

targeting a potential witness rather than a potential defendant, and is therefore subjected to First

16

Amendment scrutiny. Opp’n at 4. Reddit argues the evidence Movants seek can instead be

17

obtained from both the defendant internet service provider (“ISP”) itself and from a number of ISP

18

subscribers that Movants know to have engaged in copyright infringement, already in Movants’

19

possession. Id. at 2.

20

A.

Legal Standard

21

The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals to speak anonymously.

22

Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 166–67

23

(2002); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341–42 (1995). “An author’s decision

24

to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a

25

publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre,

26

514 U.S. at 352. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the decision to remain anonymous extends to

27

anonymous speech made on the internet. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1173

28

(9th Cir. 2011) (“[O]nline speech stands on the same footing as other speech – there is ‘no basis
4

1

for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied’ to online speech.”)

2

(quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)). “When adjudicating

3

discovery requests that would unmask an anonymous speaker, then, courts must consider the First

4

Amendment implications of disclosure—just as they would when adjudicating any other discovery

5

request that risks infringing First Amendment rights.” In re DMCA § 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter,

6

Inc., 608 F. Supp. 3d 868, 876 (N.D. Cal. 2022).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that internet platforms can assert the First Amendment

8

rights of their users, based on the close relationship between the platform and its users and the

9

“genuine obstacles” users face in asserting their rights to anonymity. In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

10

875 F.3d 1179, 1183 n.2 (9th Cir. 2017). When third-party providers such as Reddit receive

11

subpoenas to produce identifying information of posters of anonymous speech, courts apply the

12

appropriate First Amendment standard to ensure that a person’s right to anonymous speech is

13

protected. Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979, 983 (N.D. Cal.

14

2015); In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1172–77. In Anonymous Online Speakers,

15

the Ninth Circuit reviewed the developing tests in the area of anonymous online speech and left it

16

to the discretion of district courts to choose the proper standard in a given case, based on the

17

nature of the speech at issue. Id. at 1174–77; see, e.g., Art of Living Found. v. Does 1-10, 2011

18

WL 5444622, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (“[I]n choosing the proper standard to apply, the

19

district court should focus on the nature of the [defendant’s] speech[.]”) (cleaned up); SI03, Inc. v.

20

Bodybuilding.com, LLC, 441 F. App’x 431, 431–32 (9th Cir. 2011) (same). “For example, . . .

21

commercial speech should be afforded less protection than political, religious, or literary

22

speech[.]” In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1177.

23

In “evaluating the First Amendment rights of anonymous Internet users in the context of a

24

third-party civil subpoena,” district courts have followed the approach taken in Doe v.

25

2TheMart.com, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001). Rich v. Butowsky, 2020 WL 5910069,

26

at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020); In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1176 (describing

27

the 2TheMart.com test). Under that approach, disclosure of anonymous users’ identities is

28

appropriate only “in the exceptional case where the compelling need for the discovery sought
5

1

outweighs the First Amendment rights of the anonymous speaker.” 2TheMart.com, 140 F. Supp.

2

2d at 1095. Courts consider four factors: whether “(1) the subpoena seeking the information was

3

issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose, (2) the information sought relates to a core

4

claim or defense, (3) the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that claim or

5

defense, and (4) information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is

6

unavailable from any other source.” Id.; Rich, 2020 WL 5910069, at *3–4. This is a “high[ ]

7

standard,” In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1176, and the factors are weighed

8

“based on the circumstances of a given case,” Rich, 2020 WL 5910069, at *4; Sines v. Kessler,

9

2018 WL 3730434, at *13 n.16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

B.

Analysis
A higher standard for unmasking a non-party witness exists than for unmasking a potential

12

defendant because–unlike the need to identify a potential defendant–litigation can often continue

13

without interfering with a non-party witness’s First Amendment right to anonymity. 2TheMart,

14

140 F. Supp. 2d at 1095. Consequently, other courts in this District have recognized that a

15

dispositive “question here is whether the information is available from ‘any’ other source,” which

16

is “a high standard.” See In re Reddit, Inc., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2023 WL 3163455 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

17

28, 2023) (“Reddit I”); In re Reddit, Inc., 023 WL 4849434 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2023) (“Reddit

18

II”); compare Rich, 2020 WL 5910069, at *5 (subpoena enforced because the anonymous account

19

was a singularly “essential witness” for the litigants).

20

In Reddit I, the copyright holders, including Voltage Holdings, sought to unmask seven

21

Reddit users who had generally posted about internet service providers and about copyright

22

infringement notices they received from those providers. 2023 WL 3163455, at *2. Those

23

copyright holders suggested that unmasking the Reddit users would help the copyright holders

24

establish that a defendant ISP in the underlying litigation did not adequately implement a repeat

25

infringer policy for purposes of seeking a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) safe

26

harbor. Id. The court analyzed the copyright owners’ motion under the First Amendment

27

standard articulated in 2TheMart.com and, applying that standard, denied the copyright holders’

28

motion to compel Reddit to produce identifying information, recognizing that under the
6

1

circumstances, it was implausible to believe that the Reddit users served as an “irreplaceable

2

source” of evidence in the copyright holders’ underlying litigation. Id. at *4. The court held the

3

copyright holders could not meet the 2theMart standard because:

4

there is information available from another source to establish or
disprove the plaintiffs’ three alleged categories of relevance.
Specifically, [the ISP] is the party that (according to the plaintiffs)
“has not reasonably implemented a policy for terminating repeat
infringers,” “controls the conduct of its subscribers,” and allows its
customers “to freely pirate without consequence.” The high
likelihood that this information is available from [the ISP] defeats the
plaintiffs’ subpoena.

5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Id.

10

Two months later, many of the same copyright holders (with a few added) filed Reddit II.

11

Both Voltage Holdings and Screen Media Ventures were movants in Reddit II. The second case

12

presented nearly identical facts to Reddit I but involved different Reddit users and a different

13

defendant ISP. Reddit II, 2023 WL 4849434, at *1. Notably, in Reddit II, the copyright holders

14

had requested and received from the defendant ISP a list of that ISP’s top infringing IP addresses.

15

Id. The court again applied 2TheMart and analyzed why the copyright holders were seeking to

16

unmask Reddit users, recognizing that those users would hold “at best weak evidence about [the

17

ISP’s] insufficient policy regarding repeat infringers or its appeal to pirating subscribers.” Id. at

18

*4. As the court pointed out, the copyright owners’ ability to subpoena “even a subset of” the

19

individuals identified by the defendant ISP “would [] yield information at least equivalent to, if

20

not better than, information from the six Reddit subscribers.” Id. On those bases, the Court again

21

denied the copyright holders’ motion to compel Reddit to produce identifying information. Id.

22

The present case is similar, in that Movants seek to unmask the IP addresses of six Reddit

23

users who discussed receiving DMCA notices from Frontier, based on the theory that these Reddit

24

users have made comments that “support Movants’ assertion that the ability to pirate content

25

efficiently without any consequences is a draw for becoming a Frontier subscriber [] and that

26

Frontier does not have an effective policy for terminating repeat infringers (rebutting Frontier’s

27

purported DMCA safe harbor).” Mot. at 9. However, this case is also similar in that there is

28

information available from another source, as Movants themselves note the underlying bankruptcy
7

1

court adjudicating the copyright litigation has already ruled they can obtain identifying

2

information from Frontier for IP addresses known to have pirated using Frontier’s network. Id. at

3

4.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

Movants suggest this case is distinguishable from Reddit I and Reddit II because the

5

present motion does not seek to compel “anonymous users’ identities” but is instead “limited to

6

requesting the Reddit users’ IP address logs.” Mot. at 9. While the Court is unaware of any cases

7

in the Ninth Circuit in which a court has declined to apply a First Amendment unmasking standard

8

for IP addresses, other courts have recognized that IP addresses are essential to unmasking

9

because an “IP address cannot be made up in the same way that a poster may provide a false name

10

and address.” Obi Pharma, Inc. v. Does 1-20, 2017 WL 1520085, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017).

11

For this reason, the Court finds no reason to believe provision of an IP address is not unmasking

12

subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

13

Movants also cannot show that the information they seek here is unavailable from other

14

sources. As in Reddit I and II, Movants justify their request by arguing that they seek evidence: (i)

15

that “the ability to freely pirate” drew customers to Frontier; and (ii) that Frontier failed to

16

implement a repeat infringer policy. Mot. at 6. But evidence on those issues is available and

17

obtainable outside of these six targeted Reddit users such that it is not “essential” and fails

18

2TheMart. For example, in Reddit II, the movants admitted they were in possession of a list of IP

19

addresses that had most frequently infringed copyrights using that defendant ISP’s networks. The

20

court recognized that admission to be fatal under 2TheMart; where the movants already have the

21

“top pirating IP addresses . . . it is not obvious why subpoenaing even a subset of those addresses

22

would not yield information at least equivalent to, if not better than, information from the six

23

Reddit subscribers.” Reddit II, 2023 WL 4849434, at *4. Here, Movants again admit that they

24

already have “pirating [IP] addresses.” Mot. at 4; see also Bank. Case ECF No. 2233 at 2 (Dec. 1,

25

2023) (“Movie Company Claimants have identified the IP addresses of the alleged infringers.”).

26

And Frontier has indicated it will provide Movants with identifying information for those IP

27

addresses upon receipt of a subpoena. Bank. Case ECF No. 2255 (“[W]e advised Mr. Culpepper

28

that in the absence of issuance of subpoenas (which require a further order of the Court as set forth
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

in your opinion concerning this issue) Frontier cannot provide the identification information of its

2

subscribers without violating the Cable Act.”). If Movants sought further information, they need

3

only subpoena the ISP for the subscriber information associated with that IP address, as the ISP

4

does not share Reddit’s interest in protecting the anonymity of that user. See, e.g., In re Grand

5

Jury Subpoena, 875 F.3d at 1183 n.2 (recognizing a platform’s third-party standing to assert the

6

First Amendment rights of its users because the platform has a “sufficiently close relationship to

7

its users”) (citing McCollum v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corr. & Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 879 (9th Cir. 2011)).2

8

Movants argue that even if they obtain subscriber information for those infringer IP

9

addresses, “this information would not provide them with documented evidence that the ability to

10

pirate freely was a draw to using Frontier’s service or that Frontier failed to reasonably implement

11

a policy for terminating repeat infringers.” Mot. at 12. But Reddit has stated it does not have any

12

such “documented evidence” in its possession either —it only has IP addresses. Opp’n at 8. And

13

to the extent Movants are suggesting that the Reddit posts themselves are “documented evidence,”

14

Movants need not unmask the Reddit users to admit that evidence. See, e.g., Mot. at 11-12

15

(conceding that the Reddit posts themselves “refer to Defendant’s lack of a policy for terminating

16

repeat infringers and/or failure to reasonably implement such a policy”); see also 2TheMart, 140

17

F. Supp. 2d at 1097 (“The messages are available for use at trial, and TMRT can factually support

18

its defense without encroaching on the First Amendment rights of the Internet users.”); La Force

19

v. GoSmith, Inc., 2017 WL 9938681, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017) (describing how a litigant

20

can authenticate and admit printouts of webpages as evidence).
Finally, Movants argue that because the Reddit users were “boasting of criminal conduct

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Movants also cite Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and consumer privacy class action caselaw,
arguing “[t]he Ninth Circuit has consistently held that a person has no legitimate expectation of
privacy in information they voluntarily turn over to third parties.” Mot. at 10 (citing United States
v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500, 510 (9th Cir. 2008) (an evidentiary suppression case holding that
government surveillance of a criminal defendant’s internet activity did not constitute a search
under the Fourth Amendment) and In re Zynga Privacy Litigation, 750 F.3d 1098, 1108–09 (9th
Cir. 2014) (holding that internet referrer headers do not constitute “content” under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act such that disclosure of referrer headers could sustain a civil claim
under that law)). These cases are not relevant here, where the Reddit users’ First Amendment
rights to anonymity are at issue, and neither Forrester nor Zynga suggest that IP addresses are
excluded from First Amendment review. Indeed, neither addresses the First Amendment at all.
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

violating [copyright law],” the 2TheMart standard should not apply because “copyright law

2

includes built-in First Amendment accommodations such as the fair use defense.” Mot. at. 11.

3

Movants cite In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc., 441 F. Supp. 3d 875, 882–83 (N.D. Cal.

4

2020), a case in which the court held that it need not conduct a First Amendment analysis at the

5

unmasking stage because the to-be defendant in a copyright infringement action would have an

6

opportunity to present their First Amendment defense by asserting fair use. However, this

7

argument has been rejected twice, both in Reddit I and Reddit II, because of the distinction that the

8

anonymous users here are not going to be defendants in any infringement actions. See Mot. at 9-

9

10 (“Movants are not seeking to retaliate economically or officially against these Reddit users.

10

Rather, Movants wish to use their comments as evidence . . . .”). “The fair use defense is available

11

only to those accused of copyright infringement, and the Reddit users at issue here are uninvolved

12

third parties.” Reddit I, 2023 WL 3163455, at *3 (citing In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, 441 F.

13

Supp. 3d at 882–83); see also Reddit II, 2023 WL 4849434, at *3 (declining to apply the lesser

14

“fair use” standard to a Reddit user because that user “is a witness, not a defendant. He thus does

15

[not] have available to him the built-in First Amendment accommodations of copyright law, such

16

as the fair use defense.”) (cleaned up).

17

In sum, the Court finds Movants cannot meet the 2TheMart standard because the evidence

18

they seek can be obtained from other sources, including from Frontier in the normal course of

19

discovery. While Movants note the discovery period in their underlying litigation ends in June

20

2024 (Mot. at 12), this still allows sufficient time for Movants to issue a subpoena to Frontier for

21

subscriber information and, if necessary, to seek redress from the court should Frontier fail to

22

respond.

23

V.

CONCLUSION

24

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Movants’ motion to compel.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: February 7, 2024

27
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

28
10