Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Malibu Media, LLC, A California Corporation v. John Does 1 Through 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 9, 2012

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 13,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this action plaintiff alleges that Doe defendants 1 through 13 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 13 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 them by 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 13 Doe defendants are identified in an exhibit to plaintiff's complaint.

On May 14, 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. 11.) On June 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge previously assigned to this action issued an order granting plaintiff's request. (Doc. No. 13.) Thereafter, on August 3, 2012, counsel for Doe No. 2 and Doe No. 5 filed a motion requesting that the court reconsider the June 22, 2012 order, sever and dismiss all Does other than Doe No. 1, and enter a protective order. (Doc. No. 17.) A similar motion was filed on August 7, 2012, by counsel for Doe No. 8. (Doc. No. 19.) On September 20, 2012, counsel for Doe No. 12 filed a joinder in the August 3, 2012, motion filed on behalf of Doe No. 2 and Doe No. 5. (Doc. No. 25.) On September 13, 2012 plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion for reconsideration. On September 20, 2012, counsel for Doe No. 8 and Doe No. 12 filed a combined reply and on September 25, 2012, plaintiff filed supplemental authorities in support of its opposition. Finally, on September 27, 2012, a hearing was held before U.S. Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on the motions pending before the court and thereafter those motions were submitted for decision.

However, on October 3, 2012, a related case order was issued relating ten civil actions filed by plaintiff in 2012 in both divisions of this court, all of which named only Doe defendants and involved plaintiff moving for expedited discovery. (Doc. No. 29.) As a result of that order, all of those actions including this one were reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge and to District Judge John A. Mendez.

"[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 Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) ("As a case progresses and circumstances change, a court may sometimes properly revise a prior exercise of its discretion, whether the new order is made by the same judge or another."); 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."); Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532-33 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[T]he District Court in its discretion may revisit prior interlocutory decisions entered by another judge in the same case if there are cogent reasons or exceptional circumstances."); 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 June 22, 2012 order granting expedited discovery with respect to all 13 Doe defendants is appropriate in order to prevent manifest injustice. In this regard, the undersigned finds that with respect to the requested expedited discovery as to Doe 1, plaintiff has shown good cause to conduct expedited discovery and plaintiff's ex parte application will be granted.*fn1 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,*fn2 it appears unlikely that the 13 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.*fn3 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 June 22, 2012 order granting plaintiff's ex parte application and motion for leave to take expedited discovery (Doc. No. 13) is vacated.

2. Plaintiff's ex parte application and motion for leave to take expedited discovery (Doc. No. 11) is granted in part.

3. Plaintiff may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP Charter Communications to obtain the following information about the subscriber (defendant Doe 1) corresponding to the IP address 24.176.246.156: 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).*fn4 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 defendant is denied without prejudice.

10. Plaintiff's request for an order authorizing plaintiff to subpoena the telephone number of any Doe defendant is denied without prejudice.

11. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on any ISP that plaintiff previously served a Rule 45 subpoena on in this action. The ISPs, in turn, shall serve a copy of this order upon its relevant subscriber within 14 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.

12. The August 3, 2012 motions for reconsideration and for protective order (Doc. No. 17) filed on behalf of Doe No. 2 and Doe No. 5 is denied as moot.

13. The August 7, 2012 motions for reconsideration and for protective order (Doc. No. 19) filed on behalf of Doe No. 8 are denied as moot.

In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Does 2-13 be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections.

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.