According to Dreamhost, the DOJ has now asked the court to exclude the HTTP access and error logs for the website, as well as unpublished text and photographs which had not been published by the owner of the site.
The issue will be decided Thursday, when Superior Court Chief Judge Robert Morin will rule on the DOJ's motion to compell.
The Affidavit, the indictment that was returned by a Grand Jury, and the government's repeated statements made during public hearings in the pending criminal cases make clear that the government is focused on the criminal acts of defendants and14their co-conspirators, and not their political views - and certainly not the lawful activities of peaceful protesters.
Concerns remain for the company despite this win, as there are still issues with the DOJ's request that DreamHost describes as "problematic for a number of reasons". Prosecutors say the website disruptj20.org was used for planning the disturbances.
US Attorney Channing Phillips wrote in the brief that they were only after a small group of individuals who coordinated and participated in "a premeditated riot". "That should be enough to set alarm bells off in anyone's mind", DreamHost wrote in a blog post.
The petition, which is hosted by the Avaaz petitioning site, is calling the request by the US Administration an investigatory overreach and threatens to violate the privacy and safety of millions of internet users.
DreamHost's challenge, however, was met with a DOJ motion "asking for an order to compel DreamHost to produce the records". As a result, it "could not exclude from the scope of the warrant what it did not know existed".
DreamHost refused to comply with the warrant, saying it violated its First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights because it would require releasing contact information, email addresses and photos of people who had visited the website to "exercise and express political speech".
In a recent court filing, US Attorney Channing Phillips wrote, the "lawful warrant" issued by the government was exclusively created to track people who used disruptj20.org to coordinate and organise a "premeditated riot" during Trump's inauguration ceremony.
The new request, they say, more clearly spells out the type of information they are looking to to seize during the investigation and also makes clear that the government will place under seal with the court any evidence that it does not take possession of.
Computer companies and others had argued the warrant was a "sweeping dragnet" and urged Justice to rethink the request.