First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-95

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James striking 18 Motion to Quash (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7
FIRST TIME VIDEOS, LLC,

No. C 11-3822 MEJ

8
Plaintiff,
9

v.
DOES 1-95,

11

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

Docket No. 18

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO
QUASH/DISMISS

13

On November 9, 2011, an anonymous defendant noticed a motion to dismiss the complaint,

14

which names only Doe defendants. The litigant identifies himself or herself only as “John Doe.”

15

Because John Doe has disclosed no identifying information, there is no way to determine whether

16

the motion was filed by a real party in interest or a stranger to the litigation. As such, the filing is

17

improper. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Dkt. Nos 18-22. If John Doe wishes to appear in this

18

action anonymously or otherwise, he or she must follow the proper procedures for doing so. At a

19

minimum, the Court and the parties must be informed of the litigant’s identity. If the litigant wishes

20

to protect his or her identity from the public, the litigant may use a pseudonym in public filings only

21

after receiving permission for good cause shown. Defendant is advised that the Ninth Circuit court

22

of appeals allows the use of pseudonyms only in the most unusual cases. See, e.g., Does I thru XXIII

23

v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000).

24

Further, John Doe (and any other Doe Defendants in this action) should be aware that the

25

Court considered the issue of joinder at length in its previous order and found that Plaintiff presented

26

a reasonable basis to argue that the Doe Defendants’ actions in this case may fall within the

27

definition of “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” for purposes of

28

joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Dkt. No. 9 at 7-11. As John Doe’s motion

1

presents the same generalized arguments addressed in its previous order, even if the Court were to

2

consider John Doe’s motion, it would be without merit.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: November 16, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

6
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