Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. John and Jane Does 1 Through 100
2019 WL 3718582 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may grant a plaintiff's request for expedited discovery to identify anonymous Doe defendants prior to a Rule 26(f) conference if the plaintiff establishes "good cause" by meeting a four-factor test.
Facts:
- Twitch Interactive, Inc. operates an online streaming platform where users must agree to its Terms of Service to create an account and stream content.
- A group of unnamed 'Doe' defendants created accounts and 'flooded' the platform's directory for the game 'Artifact' with prohibited content, including pornography, copyrighted movies, and a video of the Christchurch mosque attack.
- The defendants allegedly used automated programs, or 'bots,' to artificially inflate the viewer counts of their offensive streams to drive more traffic to them.
- When Twitch suspended the defendants' accounts for violating its policies, they created new accounts to continue posting the prohibited content.
- The defendants used third-party platforms, including Discord, Google, and a website named artifactstreams.com, to coordinate their activities.
- The defendants used Twitch's registered trademarks, 'GLITCH' and 'TWITCH,' without authorization on their website and on a related Twitter account.
- In response to the defendants' activities, Twitch suspended streaming for all new accounts and implemented a two-factor authentication requirement, expending significant resources in the process.
Procedural Posture:
- Twitch Interactive, Inc. filed a complaint against numerous unnamed 'Doe' defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Twitch then filed an ex parte application with the court, asking for leave to conduct limited expedited discovery and serve third-party subpoenas on several internet service providers and social media companies to learn the identities of the Doe defendants.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff establish 'good cause' for expedited discovery to identify anonymous Doe defendants by demonstrating that the defendants are real persons who could be sued, that previous steps were taken to identify them, that the lawsuit can likely withstand a motion to dismiss, and that the discovery is reasonably likely to lead to their identification?
Opinions:
Majority - William H. Orrick
Yes, a plaintiff establishes 'good cause' for expedited discovery by satisfying the four-part test. The court found that Twitch met its burden under the 'good cause' standard, warranting an order to allow subpoenas to be served on third parties to identify the anonymous Doe defendants. The court applied the four-factor test from Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com. First, Twitch identified the defendants with sufficient specificity by providing IP addresses, email addresses, and specific conduct, demonstrating they are real entities subject to personal jurisdiction in California. Second, Twitch took sufficient previous steps to identify the defendants, including conducting an internal investigation, performing reverse IP lookups, and attempting to contact the defendants via known email addresses. Third, the court found Twitch's complaint could likely withstand a motion to dismiss, as it plausibly alleged claims for trademark infringement, breach of contract, trespass to chattels, and fraud. Finally, the requested discovery from ISPs and social media companies was reasonably likely to lead to identifying information that would make service of process possible. The court granted the application but limited the scope of the subpoenas to exclude requests for financial information and issued a protective order to give the Doe defendants an opportunity to seek to proceed anonymously.
Analysis:
This order provides a clear and practical application of the 'good cause' standard for obtaining early discovery to unmask anonymous internet users. It reinforces the four-factor Seescandy test as the controlling framework within the Ninth Circuit, offering a roadmap for plaintiffs seeking to hold anonymous online actors accountable. The decision illustrates the balance courts strike between a plaintiff's right to pursue a legal remedy and the First Amendment-associated interest in anonymous speech, showing that anonymity is not a shield for tortious or illegal conduct. For future cases, this order serves as a template for the type and sufficiency of evidence a plaintiff must present, including preliminary investigation results and well-pleaded claims, to justify piercing the veil of online anonymity.
Unlock the full brief for Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. John and Jane Does 1 Through 100