Jane Doe's motion to quash subpoena in Loud v. Does, a peer to peer file sharing case against a number of "John Doe" defendants, was denied, from the bench (i.e. immediately), by Manhattan Federal Court judge Robert W. Sweet on October 12th.
The judge concluded that plaintiffs' alleging "continuing infringement" from the date of the complaint is sufficient.
The judge stayed the effect of the order for ten (10) days, to enable the movant to file an appeal, and an emergency motion for a stay, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
A full set of the motion papers is set forth under "Loud v. Does" at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/index-of-litigation-documents.html.
The lawyers for defendant "Jane Doe", a person whose IP address was allegedly used by someone setting up a p2p filesharing account, are Ray Beckerman, Morlan Ty Rogers, and Daniel A. Singer of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP
The motion was argued by Mr. Rogers. Mr. Beckerman had this to say about the outcome: "It is most unfortunate that the Court concluded that merely making a vague and conclusory allegation that defendant has committed a continuing infringement since the day of the complaint, without any substantiation of the allegation, is a sufficient basis for upholding these subpoenas. We find this result to be inconsistent with the rules for pleading copyright infringement, and, if we are requested by our client to do so, will file an appeal."