IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 11, 2012
THIRD DEGREE FILMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 4,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this action plaintiff alleges that Doe defendants 1 through 4 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 4 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 4 Doe defendants are identified in an exhibit to plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff has 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")
address of the 4 Doe defendants. With respect to the requested
expedited discovery as to Doe 1, the court finds plaintiff has shown
good cause to conduct expedited discovery and the request will be
granted.*fn1 With respect to the remaining Doe
defendants, however, it appears 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 4 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 recommend that the remaining Doe
defendants be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 21.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's ex parte application and motion for leave to take expedited discovery (Doc. No. 5) is granted in part;
2. Plaintiff may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP Bright House Networks to obtain the following information regarding the subscriber (defendant John Doe 1) corresponding to the IP address 220.127.116.11: name, address, and e-mail address. The subpoena shall have a copy of this order attached.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Plaintiff's request for an order authorizing plaintiff to subpoena the Media Access Control address of any Doe defendant is denied without prejudice.
9. Plaintiff's request for an order authorizing plaintiff to subpoena the telephone number of any Doe defendant is denied without prejudice.
In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Does 2-4 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).