Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. v. Defcad, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-08704
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Everytown v. Defcad, Judge Gardephe ordered Twitter to disclose anonymous users’ basic account information and denied Twitter’s motions as moot.
Everytown, Twitter, and the anonymous defendants whose account information may be disclosed.
What happened
In Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. v. Defcad, Inc., the court approved an agreement between Everytown and Twitter and considered whether Twitter had to provide information identifying anonymous defendants.
The court found that Everytown met the required five-factor test. It concluded that Everytown had shown a preliminary claim of trademark infringement, requested limited information, could not obtain the information elsewhere, needed it to pursue its claims, and had a stronger need for the information than the anonymous defendants’ privacy interest.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe ordered Twitter to provide, within seven days, names, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of birth supplied by the relevant account registrants or users. Twitter did not have to provide the other materials covered by an earlier expedited-discovery order; any further discovery had to be sought through a formal subpoena. The court denied Twitter’s motions to intervene and modify as moot.
The detailed version
- Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. v. Defcad, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08704
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 17, 2021
Background
Everytown sought information from third-party Twitter to identify anonymous defendants in its lawsuit. The order refers to claims involving alleged trademark infringement and to earlier orders authorizing expedited discovery. Twitter filed a motion to intervene, meaning to formally participate in the case, and a motion to modify the earlier discovery order.
Court’s analysis
The court applied a five-factor standard for identifying anonymous speakers. It found that Everytown had made a preliminary showing of actionable harm; that the requested information was narrowly limited to the defendants’ identities, including names and email addresses; that Everytown could not obtain the information from another source; and that the information was necessary for Everytown to pursue its claims. The court also found that Everytown’s need for the information outweighed the defendants’ expectation of privacy.
Order
The court ordered Twitter to produce, within seven days, any names, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of birth provided by the registrants or users of the relevant accounts. Twitter was not required to produce the other materials identified in the November 5 expedited-discovery order. If Everytown sought additional discovery from Twitter, it had to use a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The court denied Twitter’s motion to intervene and motion to modify as moot.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.