[Davidwtc]

Personally, I don't buy the traffic camera analogy, in part because I don't buy into traffic camera enforcement. In my jurisdiction, traffic camera enforcement is a civil, not criminal, fine. So, there is a lesser standard of proof and possibly no right to remain silent. The fines are also relatively small, so there is no public outcry and little incentive for legal challenges.

In the case of the decision in question, the issue involved a motion to issue subpoenas to obtain IP addresses from third party providers of Internet services and John Doe motions to quash. The court noted that based upon recent history, it was estimated that only 30% of the eventual offenders were the actual IP address owner. That would seem to support a finding that an IP owner's identity should be protected, because that identity is, more likely than not, not the offender. That was not the basis of the court's ruling, however.

Actually, the ruling allowed the requested discovery, but only as to the first-named John Doe defendant in each of four complaints. The magistrate denied the "swarm joinder" of hundreds of others, because (1) of abusive litigation tactics by the plaintiffs and (2) the swarm joinder appeared to be an attempt to avoid multiple filing fees. The information that the magistrate permitted to be discovered was limited and to be provided under seal (confidentially) to the court, not the plaintiff, to be provided to counsel at a status conference.

The abusive litigation tactics constituted a refusal of the plaintiff's to receive evidence of innocence of the IP owner, instead demanding $2900 in settlement with no discussion. this was after the defendant John Doe offered up his or her computer for examination as proof of innocence.

The decision is an interesting read.