03/02/2020 In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. :: 2017 :: New York Court of Appeals Decisions :: New York Case Law :: New York Law :: US … notions of justice but also has considerable predictive power [FN22]. [*25]Because Facebook is here to protect its own rights, not only the rights of its users, and because no one contends it will have any other opportunity to assert its own rights on appeal, it should be able under the New York common law to present the case for its motion to quash before the Appellate Division -— and, if necessary, before this Court. If it cannot, there will be no opportunity for the Appellate Division or this Court to harmonize the decisions of our trial courts with one another, with our interpretation of the law, or with the requirements of the SCA —- forcing the federal due process and New York constitutional issues on the Court. III. Standing under the SCA and the Common Law Because Facebook is entitled to appeal Supreme Court's denial of its motion to quash under the SCA and New York common law, the issues of its standing to challenge the bulk warrants and of the propriety of the SCA warrants themselves were properly before the Appellate Division. Because the former issue is a question of law adequately briefed by both parties, I conclude that Facebook has standing to assert its own rights under the SCA, its own rights under the common law, and the rights of its users under the traditional test for third-party standing. I would remit the case to the Appellate Division to evaluate the merits of Facebook's motion to quash, and neither have nor should have any view on the merits determination. a. SCA Standing Section 2703 (d) grants service providers a right to move to quash or modify warrants (supra, Part I). Thus, to determine standing, a plaintiff need only allege that it is a "service provider" as defined by the statute. No one disputes that Facebook is a service provider. Therefore, the statute itself establishes Facebook's standing to file a motion to quash, in which it can argue the warrants are unusually voluminous and/or unduly burdensome. [FN23] b. Common Law Standing Even if Section 2703 (d) did not exist, or it was interpreted to extend to subpoenas only and not warrants, Facebook laid out a prima facie case that compliance with the court order would injure it. That injury establishes standing. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2017/16.html 29/44