On September 27, 2011, adult-film company Hard Drive Productions filed a lawsuit in federal court against 1,495 anonymous defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants were all involved in transferring one of Hard Drive's copyrighted films through the file-sharing protocol BitTorrent. Hard Drive alleged one count of copyright infringement, and included a list of the IP addresses allegedly involved in the BitTorrent transfers.

Hard Drive then moved for expedited discovery, in order to subpoena the relevant Internet Service Providers for the identities of the parties linked to the IP addresses. The district court granted Hard Drive's motion and allowed the company to subpoena the ISPs.

Over the following month, the district court received three anonymous motions to quash or modify the subpoenas. On November 2 District Court Judge Bates denied the anonymous motions on the basis of local court rules requiring filings to contain full identifying information. Judge Bates further stated that the anonymous defendants could re-file their motions under their true names, and those motions (and their identities) would be kept under seal from both the plaintiff and the general public, even if the motions eventually failed. Judge Bates also stayed the subpoenas because the anonymous motions raised "substantial issues."

On November 10, Judge Bates issued an order clarifying the procedure by which the defendants' filings would be placed under seal from the plaintiff.

On November 16, Judge Bates referred the case to Magistrate Judge Facciola. On November 28, the Magistrate Judge issued to counsel a notice of the case's assignment.

On November 22 and 23, the court received a pair of motions under seal, accompanied by publicly accessible notices of those filings. One of these notices mentioned that the sealed motion included arguments regarding personal jurisdiction, Rule 45(c)(3)(A), and misjoinder, along with a motion for a protective order. According to one of the notices, the defendants provided Hard Drive with copies of the motions, redacted to remove all personally identifying information.

On November 30, one of the anonymous defendants was dismissed from the case.

On December 2, four defendants, using their real names, filed motions to quash and/or to dismiss. It is unclear whether any of these identified defendants had previously filed anonymously. The four motions, three of which were filed pro se, made slightly different arguments: one claimed to have been away from home when the alleged copyright infringement took place; one made an argument based on the availability of the sought-after information; one argued that the infringement must have happened on the defendant's unsecured WiFi network; the last motion described the allegedly-abusive series of lawsuits filed by the plaintiff, and argued that joinder of all 1,495 defendants was improper.

On December 13, notice of another sealed motion to quash was filed.

On December 21, the Magistrate Judge Facciola refused to docket any anonymously filed motions to quash. He divided the moving defendants into four categories: 1. Those using their real names; 2. Those remaining totally anonymous; 3. Those using only their IP addresses; and 4. Those filing under seal pursuant to Judge Bates's order. The motions filed by defendants using their real names were docketed. Motions filed by defendants who either remained totally anonymous or used only their IP address as identification were rejected, and those defendants were given a February 1 deadline to re-file under their real names. Finally, motions filed under Judge Bates's order (sealing the motions from the plaintiffs) were also rejected. Magistrate Judge Facciola gave these defendants two choices: they could withdraw their motions to quash, thus remaining anonymous "at this point"; or, they could choose to have their motions filed on the public docket, where the "plaintiff and anyone else who accesses the public docket will [be able to] know who they are." These defendants were given until February 1 to decide which option to choose.

Magistrate Judge Facciola acknowledged that these defendants had "justifiably" relied on Judge Bates's order permitting the motions to be sealed from the plaintiffs. The Magistrate Judge "concluded, however, that no one will be permitted to proceed any further in this case without identifying himself or herself," and stated that "I will not consider any motion unless it is publically filed." In support of this conclusion, Magistrate Judge Facciola stated that "[i]ndividuals who subscribe to the internet through ISPs simply have no expectation of privacy in their subscriber information." He cited three cases in support of his conclusion: U.S. v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 573 (3rd Cir. 2010); Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 335 (6th Cir. 2001); and Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co. v. Does 1-4,577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212, 216 (D.D.C. 2010).

On January 5, 2012, Hard Drive filed a set of responses to the four defendants who had previously filed motions under their real names. The content of the responses varied depending on the defendant, but all four contained the same standing argument: that only the ISPs, as the parties to which the subpoenas were directed, had standing to challenge the subpoenas. Hard Drive argued that if a party is neither the target of the subpoena, nor possess the sought-after documents, that party lacks standing to challenge the subpoena. Hard Drive noted that all four defendants may be eligible for an exception under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii), which, according to Hard Drive, applies if a party "claims a personal right or privilege" in the information sought by the subpoena. According to Hard Drive, however, each of the four defendants had failed to claim this personal right.

On January 20, Hard Drive dismissed nine more anonymous defendants.

Puerto 80 is a solely-owned limited liability company based in Arteixo, Spain. The company operates a website entitled Roja Directa, which provides a chronological listing of sporting events with links to websites that are streaming live broadcasts of those events over the Internet. The website also operates a series of message boards and a small blog.

On January 31, 2011, an agent with the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement division, filed an affidavit for a warrant to seize several domain names, including rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com. Using a recently-modified civil forfeiture law passed in 2008, the agent alleged that these domain names were property used for the commission of criminal copyright infringement, and thus subject to seizure. According to the United States, Roja Directa linked to websites streaming sporting events, the copyrights of which are owned by the NFL, NBA, NHL, and WWE. These organizations did not license the webcasts. This seizure was part of a larger IP enforcement campaign called Operation in Our Sites, which began in June of 2010 and continues today.

A federal magistrate judge issued a warrant for the seizure of the domain names. This order applied specifically to the URLs only, and not the servers which contain the Roja Directa website. The warrant ordered the domain name registries for the ".com" and ".org" top level domains, as well as Puerto 80's registrar for "rojadirecta.com" and "rojadirecta.org," to transfer ownership of the domain name to the United States, who then displayed a page informing the public that the domain name had been seized.

According to Puerto 80, the company attempted to negotiate with the United States for the return of the domain names, but reached no agreement. On June 13, 2011, Puerto 80 filed a petition for release of its seized property pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 983(f) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Puerto 80 argued that linking to other websites does not constitute criminal copyright infringement, there is no risk that evidence will be unavailable should the government decide to initiate a forfeiture proceeding, and the restriction of the expressive content of the website before an adjudication of whether the content was infringing was a prior restraint of speech. The United States filed a memorandum in opposition, arguing that the actions of Puerto 80 constituted criminal copyright infringement, to release the domain name would allow continuation of that infringement, and the domain name seizure was not a prior restraint because Roja Directa was able to move the websites to new domains housed outside of the United States.

On August 4, 2011 the district court denied Puerto 80's petition for release.The court did not find the hardship necessary for a § 983(f) dismissal, and suggested that the First Amendment arguments were best left to a motion to dismiss against the forfeiture complaint. Puerto 80 filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 18, 2011, and shortly thereafter filed a motion for expedited appeal, which the Second Circuit granted.

Puerto 80 filed its opening brief to the Second Circuit on September 16, 2011. The United States filed a response brief on November 15, 2011. The court also accepted an amicus curiae brief from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed on November 22, 2011.

Puerto 80's reply brief to the government's response is due on December 6, 2011, with argument before the Second Circuit slated for the week of December 19th.

Fight for the Future is an advocacy organization focusing on free speech and consumer rights issues related to intellectual property and technology. The organization is opposed to Senate Bill S.978, introduced in May 2011, which alters the criminal penalties for copyright infringement and extends criminal liability for public performances of works in certain circumstances.

Fight for the Future believes that extending liability for public performances of copyrighted works would extend criminal liability to many amateur musicians, who frequently post unauthorized "covers" of works on websites such as YouTube. Noting that musician and teen celebrity Justin Bieber gained his initial fame from unauthorized covers of R&B songs on YouTube, the organization created a website called FreeBieber.org. The website contains several depictions of Bieber in prison uniform and behind bars, suggesting that he could be arrested if S.978 becomes law. The website encourages visitors to write to Congress opposing the bill, and to create videos expressing their opposition using a superimposed overlay of prison bars and a digital wig in the shape of Bieber's iconic haircut, provided by the website.

On October 25, 2011, counsel for Justin Bieber sent a cease-and-desist letter to FreeBieber.org, claiming that the website infringed Bieber's trademark rights by falsely suggesting his endorsement of Fight for the Future's campaign, and violated his rights of privacy and publicity.

Fight for the Future's attorney responded, claiming that any use of Bieber's name or image was nominative fair use under trademark law and protected by the First Amendment. The attorney also rejected claims of privacy and publicity, noting that Bieber is an extremely public figure and any claim under right of publicity would be trumped by the First  Amendment.

As of October 31, 2011, the website is still active.  S.978 has been reported out of committee and has been placed on the legislative calendar.

According to SF Weekly, on July 3, 2011, a homeless man named Charles Hill was shot to death by police officers for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ("BART"). Two and a half years earlier, BART police used lethal force against 22-year old Oscar Grant. Both cases have lead activist groups to stage protests against BART and its police force.

On July 11, 2011, protesters with No Justice, No BART  and other organizations staged a protest in the Civic Center Station, where Hill was shot. According to SF Gate, approximately 100 protesters attended and some blocked the doors of trains, leading BART to temporarily close the station.

According to a BART press release, BART and San Francisco police officers learned of a further protest planned for August 11, 2011 early in the week of August 8th. They believed that protesters were planning to coordinate protests at the station using cell phones, and in an attempt to disrupt that coordination shut down cellular service to specific stations in the BART system. According to Scientific American, BART did this by disabling power to the cell phone and wireless network base stations it owned in the underground system. According to CBS San Francisco, the August 11th protest never materialized.

According to Mashable, web activist group Anonymous responded to BART's closure of cellular service by shutting down the consumer-relations website mybart.org on August 14, 2011, leading to the website's indefinite suspension. Anonymous also organized further protests on August 15, 2011, leading to additional station closures, though no reported cell phone service disruption.

The Bay Citizen reports that the FCC is investigating BART's decision to disable cell phone service in the stations. On August 29, 2011, a group of public interest organizations led by Public Knowledge filed a petition for declaratory ruling to the FCC, arguing that BART's actions violated the Communications Act of 1934.