UN4 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties

Filing 9

ORDER denying (7) Motion to Consolidate Cases 2:17-cv-02164-DGC; 2:17-cv-02168-DLR; 2:17-cv-02169-DGC; and 2:17-cv-02170-DJH. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/25/17. (Associated Cases: 2:17-cv-02164-DGC, 2:17-cv-02168-DLR, 2:17-cv-02169-DGC, 2:17-cv-02170-DJH) (LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 UN4 Productions Incorporated, a Nevada corporation, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 No. CV17-2164 PHX DGC ORDER v. John and Jane Doe 1-26, Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion to consolidate this case with three similar actions: 18 17-02168-DLR, 17-02169-DGC, and 17-2170-DJH. The motion argues that all four 19 actions involve the same issues and relate to the same movie copyright. Doc. 7. 20 These are not class actions. This case names 26 individual defendants, identified 21 only by the IP addresses allegedly used to download the movie. The other three cases 22 name 14, 30, and 21 defendants, respectively, and would result in 91 total defendants – 23 91 separate causes of action in one proceeding – if the cases were consolidated. 24 As Plaintiff notes, the Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to 25 consolidate actions. Doc. 7 at 3. The Court declines to consolidate these actions for 26 reasons explained in a similar case: 27 28 Allowing a case to proceed against such a large number of Defendants would invite many unrelated motions to present the different factual and legal defenses of each Defendant. Receiving, sorting, and responding to 1 10 such a high volume of motions would require significant judicial resources. Scheduling and conducting hearings and discovery disputes among many parties would be almost impossible. Additionally, during discovery, each Defendant, who might appear pro se and not be an e-filer, would be forced to serve paper copies of all filings on all other parties, and would have the right to be present at all other parties’ depositions, all of which would be a significant burden on each Defendant litigant. Also, because of the potential prejudice to each unrelated Defendant, the Court likely would not undertake to conduct a trial for all Defendants at the same time. Thus, the Court would effectively sever these cases for trial, and conduct over a hundred separate trials with different witnesses and evidence, eviscerating any “efficiency” of joinder. Finally, all of these issues would needlessly delay the ultimate resolution of any particular Defendant’s case, which again weighs against efficiency and the opportunity for the Defendant to receive a prompt resolution of his or her case. 11 Riding Films, Inc. v. John Does I-CCL, No. CV13-00299-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 2152552, 12 at *3 (D. Ariz. May 16, 2013) (footnote omitted). 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to consolidate (Doc. 7) is denied. 14 Dated this 25th day of August, 2017. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?