in the form of account IDs along with IP addresses. Each of the platforms has disclosed the BSI-for example, the Twitter BSI runs into 145 pages, and shows details of from which IP address the user has logged in, and at what time date. There are no other details of the said user. In respect of some users, e-mail addresses have been given. However, no further details are available. The Plaintiffs having received these BSI details, would have to make detailed enquiries and investigations in order to identify the complete contact details of the individuals whose IP addresses or e-mail addresses, or in some cases, mobile numbers have been disclosed. The Plaintiffs may, after proper enquiries take proper steps to implead such uploaders as they deem appropriate, based on the BSI disclosed by the platforms. The suit is at the initial stage and it cannot be said that without impleadment of these subscribers, the suit is not maintainable. At the time when the suit was filed, the Plaintiffs had no way of ascertaining the details of these persons and even now, the subscriber information which the Court has glanced through, appears to be quite cryptic. This is owing to the nature of internet itself wherein users can upload information without disclosing their complete identities. In X Vs. Twitter Inc.,5 the Supreme Court of New South Wales has held that such circumstances would in fact justify granting of a Norwich Pharmacal order directing discovery of further details. However, the same could be done at a later stage. Thus, the objection that due to non-joinder of these parties, the suit is not liable to be entertained is not tenable at this stage. At the time of framing of issues, the question of mis-joinder or nonjoinder can be considered by the Court. However, since these platforms are 5 [2017] NSWSC 1300 CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 16 of 76