The hearing, to be held via public Zoom webinar, will focus on the procedural basis for subpoenas issued by Ted Entertainment, Inc. (TEI) to identify alleged copyright infringers.
Judge Kim specifically asked TEI whether it issued the subpoenas pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), and requested an explanation if it did not.
The court also questioned why the parties discussed case law applying the DMCA legal standard instead of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 if the subpoenas were not issued under the DMCA.
A central issue is whether the creation of the DMCA subpoena procedure negated a party’s ability to seek a Rule 45 subpoena for the same information.
The notice indicates the parties are arguing the merits of Denims’ alleged copyright infringement and the Doe Defendants’ alleged contributory copyright infringement.
Judge Kim asked why the court must find that TEI made a prima facie case for both copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement to decide the Doe Defendants’ motion to quash.
The court also asked how the facts of this case are distinguishable from *In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc.*, 441 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2020) and *Barnes v. YouTube, Inc.*, No. 25-CV-05901-VKD, 2026 WL 412470 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2026).
Additionally, Judge Kim asked if the Highfields test, applied by Judge Chhabria in *In re DMCA § 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter, Inc.*, 608 F. Supp. 3d 868 (N.D. Cal. 2022), should apply if the alleged infringer commented without copyright infringement.
The court further inquired whether the facts are undisputed enough to allow a determination of fair use.