Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James striking 33 John Doe's Motion to Quash (I.P. Address 69.114.65.247). (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 Northern District of California 5 6 PATRICK COLLINS, INC., No. C 11-2766 MEJ 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO QUASH/DISMISS (IP ADDRESS 69.114.65.247) DOES 1-2,590, Docket No. 33 10 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 On November 15, 2011, an anonymous defendant noticed a motion to dismiss the complaint, 13 which names only Doe defendants. The litigant identifies himself or herself only as “John Doe” at 14 I.P. Address 69.114.65.247. Dkt. No. 33. Because John Doe has disclosed no identifying 15 information, there is no way to determine whether the motion was filed by a real party in interest or 16 a stranger to the litigation. As such, the filing is improper. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Dkt. 17 Nos. 33. 18 If John Doe wishes to appear in this action anonymously or otherwise, he or she must follow 19 the proper procedures for doing so. At a minimum, the Court and the parties must be informed of 20 the litigant’s identity. If the litigant wishes to protect his or her identity from the public, the litigant 21 may use a pseudonym in public filings only after receiving permission for good cause shown. 22 Defendant is advised that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals allows the use of pseudonyms only in 23 the most unusual cases. See, e.g., Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 24 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 Further, John Doe (and any other Doe Defendants in this action) should be aware that the 26 Court considered the issue of joinder at length in its previous order and found that Plaintiff presented 27 a reasonable basis to argue that the Doe Defendants’ actions in this case may fall within the 28 definition of “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” for purposes of 1 joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Dkt. No. 12 at 6-11. As John Doe’s motion 2 presents the same generalized arguments addressed in its previous order, even if the Court were to 3 consider John Doe’s motion, it would be without merit. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: November 16, 2011 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 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 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?