The recent spate of federal lawsuits against accused movie pirates has led to an extraordinary outpouring of "motions to quash" the subpoenas issued in these cases. Some of these motions are more creative than others—case in point, the motion filed this week in Chicago by someone accused of sharing the Uwe Boll film Far Cry.

Though the case was actually filed in Washington, DC, one Charnae Terry of Chicago went to the Northern District of Illinois instead and filed a motion to quash. It was not, as are so many other such motions, a plea to quash the subpoena for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, it's an admission that Terry runs an open WiFi network with a Comcast cable connection and shares it with her neighborhood.

This has little to do with quashing a subpoena—the issue of one's "guilt" isn't even on the table at this phase of the case, and the DC judges overseeing these file-sharing cases have routinely denied such pleas. But what makes this one such a standout is the frank admission of sharing the connection so broadly.

Comcast frowns on such behavior; users of its services agree not to "resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (for example, through WiFi or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly." (And what an open WiFi router has to do with a "dynamite" [dynamic] IP address is beyond us.)

Judges are running out of patience with the huge numbers of motions to quash that are now cluttering their dockets. For instance, Judge Rosemary Collyer in DC oversees the Far Cry case and has received many such motions. Collyer, who initially responded to each motion, has now taken to painting with a broader brush. From the case docket for late last week:

More importantly, Collyer's Far Cry case is being used by a group of defendants who have banded together to file an Omnibus Motion opposing the subpoenas (and demanding attorneys' fees) and the court's authority over the far-flung defendants. But, in doing so, the defendants want to maintain their anonymity. Collyer is having none of it.

Courts must—except in the rarest of circumstances—hold "open proceedings" that include publicizing the names of those who seek justice before a judge. After considering the request from the "John Does," Collyer has now denied it; defendants have until October 29 to submit their names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses to the court.

"In the event that John Does who have filed pleadings fail to satisfactorily identify themselves, the Court may strike their pleadings," she warns. "Future filings by John Does will not be permitted without such identification."