Pro se movants Bongseop Kim, Woohyuk Yang, and Youngyoon Ko filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which was issued on January 15, 2026. The movants argued that the petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of copyright infringement sufficient to overcome their right to anonymous speech.
The court noted that courts in the Ninth Circuit require a balancing of the anonymous speaker's First Amendment interests against the subpoenaing party's need for identifying information. This inquiry involves two steps: demonstrating a prima facie case on the merits and balancing the need for discovery against First Amendment interests.
In this context, the court emphasized that to obtain a subpoena, a party must make a prima facie case that the infringing use did not constitute fair use. The movants argued that their content presented substantial questions of transformative use and fair use.
The court observed that the factual record supported by admissible evidence before it was sparse. To determine whether the allegedly infringing use constitutes fair use, the court required the movants to identify the specific content at issue.
Judge Thompson ordered the movants to identify the specific videos at issue and their arguments for why the content constitutes fair use by no later than April 28, 2026.
The petitioner is required to file a response by May 12, 2026, with the movants permitted to file a reply by May 22, 2026.