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)

Download PDF
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

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?