Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590

Filing 21

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND re 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Doe Defendant at IP address Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/3/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 Northern District of California 8 9 PATRICK COLLINS, INC., No. C 11-2766 MEJ 10 Plaintiff, v. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DOES 1-2,590, 13 ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS (IP ADDRESS Defendants. _____________________________________/ Docket No. 20 14 15 On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. filed this lawsuit against 2,590 Doe 16 Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to 17 Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Real Female Orgasms 10”), using an internet peer-to-peer file sharing 18 network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. Compl. 19 ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to 20 Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 12. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve subpoenas 21 on Does 1-2,590’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including the name, 23 address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs provided 24 Does 1-2,590 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-2,590 30 days from the date 25 of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the 26 subpoena). Id. 27 28 Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by a Doe Defendant (I.P. Address 1 Dkt. No. 20. In his motion, Doe requests that the subpoena be quashed as to him 2 and the case against him dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction and venue is improper. 3 Based on the information presented in Doe’s motion, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction. 4 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to either: (1) file a voluntary dismissal of Doe 5 Defendant at I.P. Address, without prejudice to filing a complaint against him/her in 6 the proper jurisdiction; or (2) show cause why the Court should not grant Doe’s motion to dismiss. 7 Plaintiff shall file its response by November 14, 2011. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: November 3, 2011 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 The Doe Defendant does not identify him/herself by Doe Number. 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?