UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIAIN RE SUBPOENA TO VERIZONINTERNET SERVICES, INC.,_________________________________________RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONOF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES, INC.,Defendant._________________________________________RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONOF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.JANE DOE,(a.k.a. [email protected]),1Intervenor.)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))Misc. Act. No. 03-MC-804-HHK/JMFMOTION FOR LEAVE TOINTERVENE ANDPLEADING PURSUANT TOFRCP 24(c)) 1 Jane Doe respectfully declines to comply with Local Rule 11.1 requiring the first filing by a party toidentify in the caption the name and full residence address of the party. Jane Doe seeks through thismotion in intervention to protect her identity from disclosure. Compliance with Rule 11.1 wouldnecessarily defeat that purpose. Counsel will provide Jane Doe's name and residence address in camera tothe Court if the Court so requests. Counsel for Jane Doe confirm and declare that Jane Doe is a very realliving human who has participated in the preparation of these papers. Declaration of Daniel N. Ballard insupport of Motion to Intervene at §§2, 4.iTABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.Table of Authorities.....................................................................................................................iiIntroduction...................................................................................................................................1Summary of Argument................................................................................................................2Statement of Facts.........................................................................................................................5Argument.......................................................................................................................................7I. The Nature of Jane Doe's Interest................................................................................7II. Granting the Motion to Enforce will Impair Jane Doe's Interest...........................12III. No Existing Party Can or Will Protect Jane Doe's Interests...................................12IV. This Motion to Intervene is Timely...........................................................................13Conclusion and Prayer...............................................................................................................14iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage No.CasesBanco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Greenblatt , 964 F.2d 1227 (1st Cir. 1992)........................15In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 274 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2001).........................................................8In re Papandreou , 139 F.3d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1998).....................................................................13In re Sealed Case , 237 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2001)..................................................................8, 13In re Verizon Subpoena Enforcement Matter , 240 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003)...................4In re Verizon Subpoena Enforcement Matter, 257 F.Supp.2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003).......1, 4, 14Oneida Indian Nation v. New York , 201 F.R.D. 64 (N.D.N.Y. 2001)...................................16Reid L. v. Illinois State Board of Education , 289 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2002).........................16United States v. Dallas County Comm’n , 850 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1988)...........................16United States v. Oregon , 745 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1984)............................................................15Whalen v. Roe , 429 U.S. 589 (1977)...........................................................................................14Statutes17 U.S.C. §106...............................................................................................................................1117 U.S.C. §106(3)..........................................................................................................................1417 U.S.C. §512(c)(3)(A)................................................................................................................1117 U.S.C. §512(h)......................................................................................1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 1428 U.S.C. §1746...............................................................................................................................528 U.S.C. §2403...............................................................................................................................5iiiRulesFed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)...................................................................................................................2, 8Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).......................................................................................................................2Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)................................................................................................................12Local Civil Rule 7.1(j)....................................................................................................................7Other Authorities17A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane,Federal Practice and Procedure §1916 at 424 (2d ed. 1986)...............................................151INTRODUCTIONThis motion arises because 17 U.S.C 512(h) offers no opportunity to theindividuals who are the real targets of subpoenas issued under that section to be heard.By this motion, Jane Doe seeks to intervene anonymously in this special proceeding2 toprotect her privacy and other interests against the summary, anonymous, andprocedurally informal intrusion engendered by such a subpoena. It is ironic that shemust intervene here to safeguard her right of privacy and anonymous associationagainst anonymous intruders; i.e., un-named copyright owners represented by anindustry association,3 based on the fortuity of receiving a letter from the subpoena'srecipient.Plaintiff, Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA"), obtained asubpoena4 on July 9, 2003 from the Clerk of this Court directing Verizon InternetServices, Inc. ("Verizon") to produce information that would identify and locate JaneDoe, one of its internet service subscribers. Verizon sent Jane Doe a letter informing herof the subpoena on July 15, 2003. Counsel for Jane Doe advised Verizon of Jane Doe'sintention to challenge the validity of the subpoena and requested that Verizon withhold 2 On August 18, 2003, counsel for RIAA and Jane
View Full Document
Unlocking...