ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this action plaintiff alleges that Doe defendants 1 through 32 infringed on its copyright with respect to pornographic motion pictures, the graphic titles of which are identified in plaintiff's complaint. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that in the course of monitoring Internet-based infringement of its copyrighted content, its agents observed unlawful reproduction and distribution of the subject motion pictures by the 32 Doe defendants via the Bit Torrent file transfer protocol. Although plaintiff does not know the names of the Doe defendants, its agents created a log identifying the Doe defendants by their IP addresses and the dates and times of their alleged unlawful activity. The IP addresses, internet service providers ("ISPs"), and dates and times of the alleged unlawful activity by the 32 Doe defendants are identified in an exhibit to plaintiff's complaint.
On May 30, 2012, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for expedited discovery to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the ISPs to obtain the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Media Access Control ("MAC") addresses of the Doe defendants. (Doc. No. 7.) On August 1, 2012, the previously assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order granting plaintiff's request.*fn1 (Doc. No. 8.) Thereafter, on September 5, 2012, John Doe #23 filed a motion to dismiss and/or sever arguing, in part, that he has been improperly joined in this action. (Doc. No. 12.)
"[A] district court has the inherent power to revisit its non-final orders, and that power is not lost when the case is assigned mid-stream to a second judge." Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 787-88 (9th Cir. 2011). See also City of L.A. v. Santa Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court is vested with the "power to reconsider its own interlocutory order provided that the district court has not been divested of jurisdiction over the order."); United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) ("All rulings of a trial court are subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment."). "Generally stated, reconsideration is appropriate where . . . it is necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp.2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cnty., Oregon v. AC & S Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). See also Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 n. 8 (1983).
Here, the court has determined that reconsideration of the August 1,
2012 order granting expedited discovery with respect to all 32 Doe
defendants is appropriate in order to prevent manifest injustice. In
this regard, the undersigned finds that with respect to the
expedited discovery as to Doe 1, plaintiff has shown good cause to
conduct expedited discovery and plaintiff's ex parte application will
be granted.*fn2 With respect to the remaining Doe
defendants, however, it appears clear to this court that plaintiff's
joinder of unrelated defendants is improper under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 20. Given the technical complexities of BitTorrent
swarm functions,*fn3 it appears unlikely that the 32
Doe defendants engaged in any coordinated effort or concerted
activity. See, e.g., Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-60, No. C 11-01738 SI,
2011 WL 3652521, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011) ("Because Doe
defendants 2-60 were improperly joined in the matter, the Court is
authorized under Rule 21 to 'drop' these defendants."). Under these circumstances, permissive joinder under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) is not warranted.*fn4
See Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-131, 280 F.R.D. 493,
495- 500 (D. Ariz. 2012) (Surveying the various approaches to such
cases and discovery requests taken by district courts around the
country, determining that the joinder question should be addressed sua
sponte at the outset of the litigation and ultimately dismissing Does
2 through 131 without prejudice and granting the requested expedited
discovery only with respect to Doe defendant 1.) Accordingly, the
court will authorize expedited discovery only as to Doe 1
and will recommend that the remaining Doe defendants be dismissed without
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The August 1, 2012 order granting plaintiff's ex parte application and motion for leave to take expedited discovery (Doc. No. 8) is vacated.
2. Plaintiff's ex parte application and motion for leave to take expedited discovery (Doc. No. 7) is granted in part.
3. Plaintiff may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP Bright House Networks to obtain the following information about the subscriber (defendant Doe 1) corresponding to the IP address 188.8.131.52: name, address, and e-mail address. The subpoena shall have a copy of this order attached.
4. The ISP, in turn, shall serve a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order upon its relevant subscriber within 30 days from the date of service upon it. The ISP may serve the subscriber using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to the subscriber's last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service, or by e-mail notice.
5. The subscriber and the ISP shall each have 30 days from the respective dates of service upon them to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena). If that period elapses without the filing of a contesting motion, the ISP shall have fourteen (14) days thereafter to produce the information responsive to the subpoena to plaintiff.
6. The subpoenaed ISP shall preserve any subpoenaed information pending the production of the information to plaintiff and/or the resolution of any timely-filed motion contesting the subpoena.
7. The ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this order shall confer with plaintiff before assessing any charge in advance of providing the information requested in the subpoena.
8. Any information disclosed to plaintiff in response to a Rule 45 subpoena may not be used for any improper purpose and may only be used for protecting plaintiff's rights as set forth in the Complaint.
9. Plaintiff's request for an order authorizing plaintiff to subpoena the Media Access Control address of any Doe ...