A couple of weeks ago I published the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena template that this blog’s reader, Sy Ableman, created. Yesterday he emailed an updated version with the following explanation:
I’ve gotten quite a few emails from people who have used my motion to quash template, and I’ve also read responses from Steele Hansmeier that readers have forwarded me.
Some funny bits in their responses, such as “The list of permissible grounds for quashing or modifying a subpoena does not include ad hominem attacks See Fed. R. Civ. P 45…” in reference to the part in my motion about their abuse of the litigation system, which I didn’t even write. It came from a decision I quoted, that was written by a federal judge who presided over one of their BitTorrent lawsuits.
One thing made me want update my Motion to Quash template. The responses always claim that the BitTorrent protocol behaves in a different way than the other filesharing protocols used in earlier cases which were severed for misjoinder. This simply isn’t true. As I mention in my updated motion to quash:
… the analysis [does not] change because the BitTorrent protocol works by taking small fragments of a work from multiple people in order to assemble a copy. Nearly all of the older protocols in the aforementioned cases work in this fashion. Kazaa, eDonkey and various Gnutella clients (e.g., LimeWire) have incorporated multisource/swarming downloads since 2002.
I’ve also added some more lines to the list of BitTorrent cases severed for misjoinder, and some additional quotes from judges who have denied SH’s discovery.
I would like to encourage your readers, in the comments section of where you post this, to add cases and quotes from judges which I did not include.
Thank you, Sy Ableman!
Click to open or download the updated document: MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA (updated).
(If your word processor does not understand Open Office format, let me know: I’ll convert and upload this document in other formats.)
Also, I think it will be helpful to see trolls’ responses to motions based on this template, so defendants could modify their motions accordingly. Please point me to those responses, and I will fetch them from Pacer, upload to Scribd and post the links here.