Atlus Co., Ltd. v. John Doe 1
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-11102
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Atlus v. John Doe 1, Judge Carter authorized Atlus to serve subpoenas before the required conference to identify an internet subscriber and GitHub user.
Atlus Co. Ltd.; the unidentified defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2; the subscriber associated with the specified internet address; Deluxe Corporation doing business as ColoCrossing; any additional identified internet-service provider; and the affected GitHub user.
What happened
In Atlus Co. Ltd. v. John Doe 1, Atlus asked to serve subpoenas before the parties held the required early case conference. The defendants are identified as John Doe 1, doing business as ReikuIemu Games, and John Doe 2, doing business as Comp_Hack.
The court found that Atlus had shown good cause to subpoena Deluxe Corporation, doing business as ColoCrossing, for the name and address of the subscriber assigned a specified internet address. Atlus could also subpoena another internet provider identified through that process. The court separately allowed Atlus to subpoena GitHub for the affected user’s name, address, and email address without notifying that user.
The order gave the subscriber 45 days to challenge the subpoena, required the internet provider to withhold the information while any challenge was pending, and limited Atlus’s use of disclosed information to this case. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Atlus Co., Ltd. v. John Doe 1 · No. 1:21-cv-11102
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 7, 2022
Background
Atlus Co. Ltd. moved for permission to serve third-party subpoenas before the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference, the early conference at which parties generally discuss the case and discovery. The defendants are listed as John Doe 1, doing business as ReikuIemu Games, and John Doe 2, doing business as Comp_Hack.
Ruling
The court found that Atlus had established good cause to serve a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Deluxe Corporation, doing business as ColoCrossing, identified as the internet service provider. The subpoena could require the provider to give Atlus the true name and address of the subscriber assigned the internet address identified in Atlus’s supporting memorandum. Atlus could also serve the same type of subpoena on any additional internet-service provider identified in response to a subpoena.
The court separately ordered that Atlus could serve GitHub, Inc. with a Rule 45 subpoena seeking the affected user’s true name, address, and email address. GitHub was ordered to produce the requested information without notice to the affected user.
Protections and procedure
Within 15 days after the subpoena was served, the internet service provider had to reasonably attempt to identify the John Doe defendant and give that person copies of the subpoena and order. If the provider could not identify the user with reasonable technical certainty, it had to notify Atlus’s counsel in writing.
The subscriber had 45 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to proceed anonymously. During that period, the provider could not disclose the information to Atlus. If no challenge was filed, the provider had to produce the necessary information within 10 additional days. The provider could also move to quash or otherwise object to the subpoena, while protecting the subscriber’s identifying information in its filings.
If a challenge was filed, the provider had to withhold the information until the court resolved the challenge and ordered disclosure. The provider also had to preserve the subpoenaed information. Atlus could use information it received only to litigate this case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.