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)

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-