Case law · Appeals court · Federal

Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3

Decided
April 29, 2010
Docket
Docket 09-0905-cv
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 2,656 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that unserved defendants may not properly move for dismissal for failure to state a claim because they are not “parties” under Rule 12(b)(6) — Smith v. Barnett (2020)
  • holding that the complaint must contain “factual amplification . . . to render a claim plausible.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) — Manning v. Community Solutions, Inc. (2021)
  • stating that the Supreme Court’s recent pleading decisions "require factual amplification [where] needed to render a claim plausible” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) — In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (2010)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Defendant “Doe 3,” whose identity is not known to plaintiffs Arista Records LLC et al., appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Glenn T. Suddaby, Judge, rejecting Doe 3’s objections to the denial by United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece of Doe 3’s motion (originally brought by other anonymous defendants) to quash a subpoena served on his Internet service provider to obtain information sufficient to disclose his identity. The magistrate judge ruled that defendants’ qualified First Amendment right of anonymity was outweighed by, inter alia, plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants were downloading and/or distributing music over the Internet in violation of plaintiffs’ copyrights and plaintiffs’ need for the information in order to enforce their rights. On appeal, Doe 3 contends principally that the allegations in the Complaint are not sufficient to overcome his First Amendment right of anonymity; in addition, he [*113] contends that the reference of his motion to the magistrate judge and the district judge’s review of the magistrate judge’s decision were procedurally flawed. Finding no merit in Doe 3’s contentions, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are recording companies that commenced the present action in July 2008, alleging that 16 defendants — known to plaintiffs at that time not by name but only by the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses assigned to them at certain specific times by their Internet service provider (“ISP”) — had infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights by, without plaintiffs’ permission or consent, downloading and/or distributing to the public various music recordings through an online file-sharing network. {See Complaint ¶¶ 18, 22.) File-sharing (or “peer-to-peer” or “P2P”) networks allow users to exchange files directly between their computers without intermediate servers. Attached to the Complaint is an “Exhibit A” listing for each “Doe” defendant, inter alia, his or her IP address at a stated date and time, the name of the file-sharing network used (“Gnutella” or “AresWarez”), the titles of 6-10 songs downloaded from the IP address, and, for each song, which plaintiff was the copyright owner. The Complaint requests, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief prohibiting further direct and indirect infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrights.

Statutes cited

Cite this

Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2010)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.