[Infowarrior] - Judge puts hammer down on Hurt Locker P2P subpoena

[Richard Forno]

Judge puts hammer down on Hurt Locker P2P subpoena

By Nate Anderson | Last updated about an hour ago
       
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/judge-puts-hammer-down-on-hurt-locker-p2p-subpoenas.ars

A federal judge in South Dakota this week quashed a US Copyright Group subpoena targeting an ISP in his state. Why? Jurisdiction, and a fax machine.

Regional Internet service provider Midcontinent wasn't amused when it received, by fax, a subpoena on August 9 that demanded Midcontinent turn over the name, address, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and Mac addresses of several “Doe” defendants accused of pirating the film The Hurt Locker. But instead of interacting with the Washington, DC court that issued the subpoena in the first place, Midcontinent instead went to its local federal court, the US District Court for the Southern Division of South Dakota.

Midcontinent presented numerous reasons why the subpoena should not apply, including the fact that “money was not attached to the subpoena to reimburse Midcontinent for their costs of producing information.” US Magistrate Judge John Simko didn't even address the issue of payment, however, because jurisdictional and service issues were enough to quash the subpoena.

Federal Rule 45 describes how subpoenas must be handled. 45(b)(2) lays out the geographic considerations. Subpoenas must be:

(A) within the district of the issuing court;

(B) outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection;

(C) within the state of the issuing court if a state statute or court rule allows service at that place of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection; or

(D) that the court authorizes on motion and for good cause, if a federal statute so provides.

According to Simko, this subpoena was "not in compliance with any of the four descriptions of Rule 45(b)(2)." Furthermore, it was delivered only by fax (service should generally by registered mail or in person), and "service by facsimile transmission is not an authorized method of service under the Rule. The motion to quash is GRANTED for insufficient service of process."

US Copyright Group lawyers never replied to the court, and now they'll never know the identities of several dozen accused file-sharers with Midcontinent IP addresses. Given Midcontinent's small size, though, this may simply be a return-on-investment calculation; US Copyright Group has litigated hard against similar motions to quash by big ISPs like  Time Warner Cable.