New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1 - 1474

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 58 Motion to Quash (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10
11
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,

No. C 11-2770 MEJ

12
Plaintiff,
13

v.

14

DOES 1-1,474,

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH
Docket No. 58

Defendants.

16
_____________________________________/
17
18

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against 1,474

19

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

20

Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody”), using an internet peer-to-peer file

21

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

22

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

23

Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve

24

subpoenas on Does 1-1,474’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil

25

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

26

the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-1,474. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs

27

provided Does 1-1,474 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-1,474 30 days from

28

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

1
2

modify the subpoena). Id.
Now before the Court is a Motion to Quash, filed by an individual Doe Defendant requesting

3

that he be allowed to contest the subpoena without revealing his personal identifying information.1

4

Dkt. No. 58. In his motion, the Doe Defendant argues that joinder is improper in this case.

5

However, the Court addressed the issue of joinder at length in its September 22 Order and found

6

that, at this preliminary stage, Plaintiff has met the requirements of permissive joinder under Rule

7

20(a)(2). Dkt. No. 13 at 6:22-11:10. Accordingly, the Doe Defendant’s Motion to Quash is

8

DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
Dated: November 30, 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
1

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to hear and decide
nondispositive matters without the consent of the parties. A motion to quash is normally considered
a non-dispositive matter, Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010), and
therefore, the undersigned has jurisdiction to rule on the Defendant’s motion(s) to the extent they
seek to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena. In addition, a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to consider the
question of whether joinder of unserved defendants is proper, including whether unserved
defendants should be severed and dismissed from the action, because defendants who have not been
served are not considered “parties” under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532
(5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmate’s action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not been
served yet and therefore were not parties); see also United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1212,
1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter default judgment in an
in rem forfeiture action even though property owner had not consented to it because 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1) only requires the consent of the parties and the property owner, having failed to comply
with the applicable filing requirements, was not a party). Here, Plaintiff has consented to magistrate
jurisdiction and the Doe Defendants have not yet been served. Therefore, the Court finds that it has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to decide the issues raised in the instant motion(s).
2