Chicago Firm Attempts to Unmask 1000 Alleged Copyright Infringers via IP Addresses

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. is seeking to unmask the IP addresses 1,000 (and possibly more) individuals whom they believe downloaded and distributed copyright-protected works through bit torrent sites. Attorney John L. Steele, a Chicago divorce attorney, filed the lawsuit, Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1000 (Docket No. 1:10-cv-05606), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Steele is seeking to obtain the names and addresses of the alleged infringers via subpoenas that have been issued to the defendant’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”).

The main question facing the Court, the ISPs, and the Doe defendants themselves is, why Illinois?

Honestly, I am not sure myself.

Hard Drive Productions, Inc., according to its Amended Complaint, is “a leading producer of adult content within the amateur adult entertainment niche.” The Plaintiff is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business located in Phoenix, Arizona. I was not able to find any Hard Drive Productions employees, offices, or subsidiaries located in the state of Illinois.

When courts consider the appropriateness of venue, they consider the relationship of the defendants to the forum. For example, if I cause a car accident in Colorado, but the plaintiff lives in California, the proper forum for the lawsuit would be Colorado. In these cases before the Northern District of Illinois, however, Hard Drive Productions does not know the names of the individual defendants or where they are located. The Plaintiff alleges that it only knows the IP address used by the computer to commit the alleged infringement; the ISP; the date & time that a file was transferred; and the name of the file that was transferred. While several no-cost tools for identifying the general geographic location of a given IP address are available on the Internet, it appears that Hard Drive Productions failed to utilize any prior to filing its Complaint. With even a cursory examination, Hard Drive Productions would know that many of these doe defendants are not located in Illinois.

So, how does Hard Drive Productions justify its claim that the Northern District of Illinois has personal jurisdiction over the defendants? Well, they contend that since the alleged infringement occurred over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper in every jurisdiction in the United States. In essence, they argue that it does not matter whether you know the identity of defendants or where they may reside, if the conduct occurs over the Internet, a plaintiff may file suit in any U.S. jurisdiction. Hardly likely.

It also appears that Mr. Steele is attempting to prosecute a reverse-class action claim on behalf of a single corporate plaintiff against a large pool of unknown, geographically diverse defendants. It is convenient and cost-effective for the plaintiff to file one lawsuit against 1,000 unknown defendants in one forum, rather than go to the trouble of filing lawsuits in every district where the defendants may reside.
As an example, let’s say that there are fifty unknown defendants, each located in a different state. If the plaintiff files lawsuits in each state, the filing and other fees and costs will quickly escalate. If the plaintiff’s attorney works on a contingent fee basis, it behooves him or her to restrain costs. Alternatively, if the plaintiff files one lawsuit against all defendants in one jurisdiction, there is a better opportunity to control costs. The plaintiff still might be compelled to file suit in each state, however, it may be able to obtain the names and addresses of each of the defendants much earlier in the process, and begin settlement discussions prior to filing individual lawsuits.

In other similar cases, parties opposing such lawsuits have used several tools permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to place a roadblock on these reverse-class action cases. First, parties have used FRCP 20 & 21 to sever all of the hundreds of defendants from one suit. Another tool that has been successful has been to quash the subpoenas served upon the ISPs. Parties should take care, however, when seeking to quash a subpoena to unmask an IP address. In one case for example, where a pro se doe defendant filed his motion to quash, he unintentionally revealed his own identity. Lastly, other parties have challenged the venue of the suit. Before taking any action, however, it is recommended that a defendant consult with an attorney who is experienced in handling such matters.