Syntrax Lawsuit Update: Our Response To Their Subpoena

[admin]

Since this involves a lot of our members who are personally named, I think it's a good idea to update you on the situation. We received a subpoena for information about our members. We denied the request for information. Here is the letter we sent back to them:

----
Dear Mr. Mudd:

We serve as Counsel to Bodybuilding.com, LLC and are in receipt of your Letters of July 18, 2007 and July 23, 2007 to Ryan DeLuca and your Third-Party Subpoena issued July 25, 2007 to the Custodian of Records for Bodybuilding.com, LLC.

The information sought by your Subpoena will not be produced absent specific Court Order. The privacy and thus identity of the members of the Bodybuilding.com Internet Forum must be maintained so as to encourage and promote the open and free exchange of ideas and discussions in this unique community of persons sharing similar interests. Any disclosure of the identities of Forum members may thwart open communications and discourage discussions about issues of significant concern to the community . Upon review of the Complaint filed, the Dockets, and the Subpoena issued, your requests amount to an unwarranted fishing expedition for highly confidential, private information. The Subpoena is improper and invalid for several reasons set forth below. However, even if you remedy the procedural errors, and serve a new, proper, valid subpoena, we will still have no choice but to oppose same and, if necessary, to file a Motion to Quash and seek a Protective Order from the District Court of Idaho.

Enclosed for your review are the Site’s and Forum’s Terms of Service, Rules, Policies and Privacy Statement, all of which our client takes very seriously.

You may also be aware that there is a substantial and growing body of law holding that in appropriate circumstances, the First Amendment trumps such a fishing expedition for the identity of an anonymous internet speaker. Statements of criticism, sarcasm, dissatisfaction, and other sardonic commentary made by anonymous voices do not warrant the disclosure of true identities of the speakers on third-party electronic bulletin/message boards. Highfields Capital Management L.P. v. Doe, 385 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D.Ca. 2005); Rocker Management LLC v. John Does, No. 03-MC-33, 2003 WL 22149380 (N.D.Ca. May 29, 2003) (motion to quash granted as to Plaintiff's Subpoena to Third Party Internet Chat Room for identity of anonymous poster); Doe v. 2Themart.com, Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1092 (W.D.Wash. 2001) (denying Discovery and referencing that ?Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse and far ranging exchanges of ideas); Dendrite Intl, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J.Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (App.Div.2001) (denial of third-party discovery to ISP seeking to disclose identity of anonymous bulletin board poster). We will rely on these and additional cases in support of Bodybuilding.com's Motion to Quash the Subpoena.

Specifically, the procedural grounds upon which Bodybuilding.com, LLC shall object include, but are not limited to, the following:

1) The Subpoena issued does not comply with requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(B) as it fails to state the name of the court in which it is pending.

2) The Subpoena issued does not comply with requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(C) as it fails to provide a time therein specified.

3) The Subpoena issued does not comply with requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) as it is not drafted so as to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The Subpoena is deficient as it requires identification of 27 persons using various pseudonyms on Bodybuilding.com, while the vast majority of conduct described in the Complaint could not possibly be defamatory and the requests are thus excessively overbroad and would cause undue burden to comply.

4) The Subpoena issued does not comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) as it was delivered via U.S. Mail and not served by means appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b).

5) The Subpoena issued fails to include payment for the reasonable copying and document preparation charges (or even offer to pay same) for the documents sought. The requests made constitute an undue burden and expense on the recipient.

6) The Illinois Northern District Dockets indicate that the case was closed on June 13, 2007. Any subpoena issued after that date is invalid.

7) The Subpoena is dated July 25, 2007 and service by U.S. Mail effectuated shortly thereafter, nearly 45 days after Order of the Court terminating the litigation.

8) No showing of good cause by Motion has been made for any such requested information. The record consists solely of your client?s Complaint without any claims as to why such is needed. Under relevant Federal Law, we do not believe you have established the necessary requirements for the Court's permitting such Expedited Discovery.

9) The Subpoena fails to comply with the general requirement that the request is so narrowly tailored so as to avoid undue burden on the recipients of the Subpoena. For example, alleged postings by user names ElMariachi 87-88; NATHAN518 99-101; and RobW 102 contain statements that no Court could possibly find defamatory. More relevant is the fact that 15 of the 27 user names listed in Plaintiff's Subpoena (Bloute, BuckyeyMuscle, canadaboy, Coulaid, ditto, EMISGOD, Ephedra, jkeithc82, Kohen_Gadol, Nathan1, OneBetter, Seth25, Sixpack, Truth Speaker and TheUnlikelyToad) are not even referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint as having made defamatory comments. The likely reason for their inclusion, and the subsequently sent supplementary list of names, is either intended to and/or will simply annoy, harass and intimidate Bodybuiding.com Forum members.

In sum, our client will not be responding to your Subpoena. When and if you serve a proper Subpoena, we will respond accordingly.

---

Thanks,
Ryan

[BIG F@CE]

servin it up!


does this mean syntrax products are to be removed from the store?


they couldnt even get a subpoena right?

[REGIONAL]

1st in a legendary thread

EDIT= eh second

[FaceThePain]

That's a class act.

[MattyH7688]

awesome!

[ianthegreat]

marked

[Skigazzi]

They can't even issue a subpoena correctly....

[B-baldy]

You are a class act Ryan.

[NoNameNecessary]

Thanks for having our backs! This is only another bullet on the long list of reasons why bodybuilding.com is the best bodybuilding forum on the internet.

I am surprised at how lax they were with the subpoena. I haven't even studied law yet and somehow, I believe I could've done a better job.

[olinerules87]

NOt real familiar with whats going on here so let me know if I got this right... Synthrax is trying to sue people on the forum and bb.com refuses to givie out their names?

[Rocky31694]

Big gulps Eh?

Welp see ya later Syntrax

[punksurfer024]

again, i love this site....im not on that list obviously (worked for them when lawsuit started, but not after) but im glad to know this site protects its members like this......thank you

[INGENIUM]

thanks again ryan...

i am surprised they are pursuing this...especially with this 3rd party subpoena...after the case was closed...

wow

[pump32]

im glad to see our members are being protected. awesome

[johnsbod]

I give you a lot of credit for handling it this way. It's too bad that the other party is not being as professional about the [non-] issue.

[SupaNatural]

Your upstanding personal and business ethics are commendable to the utmost degree and much appreciated. Thank you!

Just curious, did they drop 4 user names from the original complaint?

[JayWesson1]

Thank you for the update

[Branch Chain Blink]

Not involved in this, but I gotta say, BB.com is handling this incredibly well. Thanks for lookin' out for your members

[REGIONAL]

Watch out , I heard that Subpoena by Syntrax causes liver failure

[JHICKS3301]

Hats off to bb.com..

[Procta]

Thats good to hear. Stick to your guns.



(Im Procta and I approve this message)

[dmangiarelli]

again, i love this site....im not on that list obviously (worked for them when lawsuit started, but not after) but im glad to know this site protects its members like this......thank you

Word!

[user98511001541]

fantastic news!

that letter is very professional and well written, congrats to your attorney for a job well done.

[yCat]

well done!

[MCWTRAINER]

My hat goes off to Ryan and BB.com for backing the forum members and loyal customers. It is good to know that we have a place where we can give honest reviews of products, no matter if they are good or bad.

Thank you BB.com for having our backs and protecting our private information.

I must ask though... Will BB.com continue to sell their products?

[RWHJR3]

Great response.

[Nailbomb9]

Personally I think they should be drop RIGHT FREAKIN NOW from the store!! Anyone who purchases their products after this doesn't deserve to be on this forum anyway...

[ianthegreat]

Links to original subpeona? Was it ever made public? Which names were mentioned?

I've been off the boards for about 3 months.

Apparently I've missed some good stuff.

[.ridiculous]

so whats happening? are people getting sued?

[Serpens Aeon]

You're clearly a good businessman, and perhaps even a man of forthright ethical compunction. Despite not being named in the suit, it warms me to find that you and your firm are taking such a stance against what I, and others, view as a repugnantly contemptible offense against this community. It is the action of a trait that I myself hope to one day exercise for the good of those I serve.

Thank you,
Greg