Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590

Filing 59

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE DECLARATION RE: CASE STATUS. Status Report due by 12/8/2011.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 12/1/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

Northern District of California

7
8
PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,

No. C 11-2766 MEJ

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
DECLARATION RE: CASE STATUS

DOES 1-2,590,

12
For the Northern District of California

v.

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

13
14

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. filed this lawsuit against 2,590 Doe

15

Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to

16

Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Real Female Orgasms 10”), using an internet peer-to-peer file sharing

17

network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322. Compl.

18

¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to

19

Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 12. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve subpoenas

20

on Does 1-2,590’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including the name,

22

address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs provided

23

Does 1-2,590 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-2,590 30 days from the date

24

of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the

25

subpoena). Id.

26

Since granting Plaintiff’s request, a check of the Court’s docket disclosed that no defendant

27

has appeared and no proof of service has been filed. Further, the Court is aware that this case is but

28

one of the many “mass copyright” cases to hit the dockets of federal district courts across the

1

country in recent months. Like in this case, after filing the suit, the plaintiff seeks discovery from

2

ISPs who

3

possess subscriber information associated with each IP address. With the subscriber information in

4

hand, the court is told, the plaintiff can proceed to name the defendants in the conventional manner

5

and serve each defendant, so that the case may proceed to disposition. This disposition might take

6

the form of settlement, summary judgment, or if necessary, trial. In most, if not all, of these cases, if

7

the plaintiff is permitted the requested discovery, none of the Doe defendants are subsequently

8

named in the cases; instead, the plaintiff’s counsel sends settlement demand letters and the

9

defendants are subsequently dismissed either by the Court or voluntarily by the plaintiff.

10

Plaintiff’s counsel to file a declaration which provides the following information:

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

As Plaintiff in this case has yet to name a single Doe Defendant, the Court hereby ORDERS

1)

Each Doe Defendant listed separately by number and IP address;

13

2)

The Doe Defendant’s ISP;

14

3)

The date on which Plaintiff served the order granting discovery on the ISP;

15

4)

The date on which the ISP served the subpoena on the Doe Defendant;

16

5)

Whether the ISP has provided the Doe Defendant’s identifying information
and, if provided, the date on which it was provided to Plaintiff;

6)

If Plaintiff has obtained the Doe Defendant’s identifying information, an
explanation as to why the defendant has not been named and why no proof of
service has been filed, as well as why the Court should not dismiss the
defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and

7)

If Plaintiff has obtained the Doe Defendant’s identifying information and the
location is outside of the Northern District of California, why the Court
should not dismiss the Doe Defendant for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper
venue.

17
18
19
20
21
22
Plaintiff shall file its status report by December 8, 2011.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: December 1, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2