The judge granted access to get IP addresses of visitors to his website, whether or not they downloaded the code, which would be relevant to Sony in proving how widely the information was disseminated. There is nothing unusual about this. Information relevant to a claim or defense is fair game for a court's subpoena power. If this was a murder case, that took place in an apartment, the judge would allow the prosecution to subpoena the lobby's visitor logs, even as to people who were not visiting the victim's apartment. This doesn't say anything about the judge's views on "information privacy" just about the fact that there really isn't any as against the subpoena power of a court. If the material is private in some way, it will be treated confidentially and redacted in public filings, but that's about it.

That's the problem with talking about a "right to privacy" in Anglo American law: there really isn't one. There are various protections serving different purposes, but they're not unified into some overarching principle of a right not to disclose or have information disclosed. That's why the subpoena power is so much broader than the power of police to search: because the animating principle isn't "privacy" but rather the protection of criminal defendants. If it were about privacy it wouldn't make sense to e.g. treat witnesses, who can be compelled to testify, differently than defendants, who can't.

Now, I'm not arguing that this is the best possible way to do things. But it's the way we have been doing it for centuries (since the Middle Ages).