Doe I v. Individuals

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that subpoena seeking “only the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person believed to have posted defamatory or otherwise tortious content . . . [was] sufficiently specific”
• finding that the plaintiff satisfied the notice requirement by “posting notice regarding the subpoenas on AutoAdmit . . . , which allowed the posters ample time to respond”
• adopting the Dendrite prima facie showing, because Cahill’s test is “potentially confusing and also difficult for a plaintiff to satisfy”
• “[C]learly the defendant’s identity is central to Doe II’s pursuit of her claims against him.”
• “AT & T sent a letter to the person whose internet account corresponded with the IP address at issue.”
• The website where the defendants posted their messages “draws between 800,000 and one million visitors per month. Anyone who can access the internet can access [the website] and view the messages posted on its discussion boards.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).