Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp. et al

Filing 50

RESPONSE to re 45 Order, Skootle and Kester's Reply to Twitter's Response to Order to Show Cause by Skootle Corp.. (Colt, Douglas) (Filed on 7/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

COLT / WALLERSTEIN LLP
Doug Colt (Bar No. 210915)
[e-mail]
Thomas E. Wallerstein (Bar No. 232086)
[e-mail]
Nicole M. Norris (Bar No. 222785)
[e-mail]
Shorebreeze II
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 540
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Skootle Corp. and James Kester

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
SKOOTLE CORP., a Tennessee corporation;
JAMES KESTER, an individual; and
GARLAND E. HARRIS, an individual,
Defendants.

CASE NO. CV 12-1721 SI
SKOOTLE CORP. AND JAMES
KESTER’S REPLY TO TWITTER,
INC.’S RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Filing Date:
Trial Date:

April 5, 2012
None Set

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SKOOTLE CORP. AND JAMES KESTER’S REPLY TO TWITTER, INC.’S RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. CV 12-1721 SI

INTRODUCTION

1

Notwithstanding Twitter’s voluntary dismissal of defendants JL4 Web Solutions and Jayson

2
3

Yanuaria, Skootle and James Kester (collectively, “Skootle”) respectfully request that this Court

4

sever Garland Harris and any other remaining defendant from Skootle. 1
Twitter does not allege, nor can it, that Skootle and Harris are jointly or severally liable for

5
6

any alleged actions, nor do the allegations against the two of them arise out of the same transaction,

7

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Accordingly, there is no justification under

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 for Skootle and Harris to remain joined.

9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10

James Kester is the founder and CEO of Skootle Corporation. Skootle sells a product

11

“TweetAdder” which helps businesses and individuals manage their Twitter accounts more

12

efficiently and effectively.
TweetAdder is not “spamware.” Rather, the product automates certain repetitive tasks

13
14

Twitter users must undergo to manage their accounts with, and in search of, numerous followers.

15

TweetAdder enables Twitter users with similar interests to follow and interact with each other while

16

also allowing users to schedule Tweets to be posted throughout the day, but only to users who have

17

chosen to follow them.
Twitter does not allege that any of the purported acts lending to breach of the Twitter Terms

18
19

of Service (the “TOS”), or any of the other causes of action in its complaint, arise out of the same

20

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Rather, Twitter contends that

21

Skootle violated the TOS, among other things, by “enable[ing] users to automate the process of

22

creating accounts and broadcasting spam Tweets to an enormous number of users.” (Complaint ¶

23

39.) Conversely, Twitter alleges that Harris “operates, uses controls, and/or authorizes the operation,

24

use and/or control of massive number of automated spam Twitter accounts (over 129,000 as of the

25

filing of this Complaint) which send spam Tweets linking to websites promoted by Harris.” (Id. ¶

26

56.)

27
28

1

Skootle and Mr. Kester do not contest that joinder of the claims against the two of them is appropriate.
-1SKOOTLE CORP. AND JAMES KESTER’S REPLY TO TWITTER, INC.’S RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. CV 12-1721 SI

Thus, Twitter claims that Harris, and users of TweetAdder, separately breached the TOS by

1
2

performing separate acts. Indeed, Twitter even identifies Skootle and Harris differently, as

3

“Spamware” and “Spammer” defendants, respectively. (Id. ¶ 10.)

4

Twitter makes no attempt to show any relationship between Skootle and Harris. Twitter does

5

not allege that Skootle and Harris acted jointly or in concert. Nor can it. The claims against Skootle

6

and Harris involve very different alleged behavior and different software products.
DISCUSSION

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

SKOOTLE AND HARRIS ARE MISJOINED UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 20(a)(2)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) provides that separate defendants may be joined in

the same complaint only when the “right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to defendants will arise in the action.”
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). Twitter’s Response attempts to sidestep 20(a)(2)(A) and focuses
only on 20(a)(2)(B) by claiming that because there is a “shared fact background, as well as the
common legal issues in play,” joinder is appropriate. Twitter is wrong.
The Northern District of California has consistently held that regardless of whether plaintiff
asserts logical groupings or similar claims as to separate defendants, absent joint and several liability,
or claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, the similarities Twitter now relies on do
not meet the requirements of Federal Rule 20(a)(2). See WiAV Networks, LLC v. 3Com Corp., 2010
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110957, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010); Innovus Prime, LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6990 (N.D. Cal. Jan 18, 2012); EIT Holdings LLP v. Yelp!, Inc., 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 64034 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2011); Optimum Power Solutions, LLC v. Apple et al. 2011
U.S. Dist LEXIS 106436 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011).
The court in WiAV Networks considered this issue thoroughly. WiAV alleged infringement of
two patents against a number of separate defendants. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110957, at *13. WiAV
did not allege that any of the defendants acted in concert to infringe the asserted patents. Id. The

-2SKOOTLE CORP. AND JAMES KESTER’S REPLY TO TWITTER, INC.’S RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. CV 12-1721 SI

1

crux of WiAV’s argument in support of a single action, like Twitter’s, was that the claims against

2

certain defendants, which it referred to as the “Laptop Defendants” had a “logical connection.” Id.

3

The court held that a “logical connection” was insufficient to meet the requirements of the

4

Federal Rules because proving liability “would necessarily require proof of facts specific to each

5

individual defendant and to each accused product. The mere fact that twelve defendants all

6

manufacture, sell, or distribute their own laptop computers does nothing to obviate the bone-crushing

7

burden of individualized methods of proof unique to each product.” Id. at *16. Recently, the EIT

8

and Optimum courts, supra, also held that joinder of different defendants making separate products

9

was inappropriate even though they were accused of infringing the same patents.

10

While Twitter relies on OpenMind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

11

116552 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) and Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1,062, 770 F. Supp. 2d

12

332 (D.D.C Mar. 22, 2011) to support its contention that courts must be “flexible” when considering

13

whether claims against defendants are “logically related,” these cases are inapposite.

14

First, as discussed above, whether Twitter’s claims against Skootle and Harris are “logically

15

related” is not the test for appropriate joinder. Second, neither OpenMind nor Call of the Wild is an

16

appropriate comparison to this matter. The plaintiffs in both OpenMind and Call of the Wild asserted

17

copyright infringement against numerous defendants for those defendants’ alleged use of the same

18

BitTorrent file-sharing protocol to illegally download and copy plaintiff’s respective copyrights. See

19

OpenMind, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116552, *17-19; Call of the Wild, 770 S. Supp. 2d at 343. In

20

those cases the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were part of the same “swarm” that downloaded

21

and provided to others the same copyrighted file. Id. (both). A “swarm” of users of BitTorrent refers

22

to different users who access and share small pieces of the same originating file, collectively working

23

together to effectuate the infringement. OpenMind, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116552, *8-9, n. 1.

24

Because the plaintiffs alleged the defendants were in the same “swarm,” working in tangent to access

25

and copy the same copyrighted file, the courts found that the plaintiffs’ causes of action against all

26

defendants arose out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Id.

27

(both). Those facts make OpenMind and Call of the Wild inapposite here.

28

-3SKOOTLE CORP. AND JAMES KESTER’S REPLY TO TWITTER, INC.’S RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. CV 12-1721 SI

1
2

II.

SKOOTLE WILL BE PREJUDICED IF TRIED ALONGSIDE AN ALLEGED
“SPAMMER”
Despite Twitter’s moniker, TweetAdder is not “spamware.” Instead, it provides businesses

3

and individuals, including, for example, Presidential campaigns, news networks, bloggers and

4

celebrities, with a streamlined way to manage their Twitter accounts and send automated news and

5

updates to other Twitter users who already elected to follow their tweets.

6

If Twitter is permitted to simultaneously try its case against both Skootle and alleged

7

“spammer” defendants such as Harris, then Skootle will be prejudiced by being wrongly associated

8

with completely dissimilar spamming activities. Skootle is entitled to present its own defense and be

9

assessed based on its own conduct alone. That right would be lost if it is “thrown into a mass pit with

10

others to suit plaintiff’s convenience.” WiAV, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110957 *16; see also Colt

11

Defense LLC v. Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28690 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22,

12

2004) (court severed cases where there was a risk of jury confusion over the evidence when multiple

13

claims were asserted against different defendants in the same case). Twitter’s disparaging references

14

to “spam,” and its attempted inclusion of both “spamware” and the “spammer” defendants in a case

15

against Skootle, are both intended to, and likely to, incite bad will against the entire group of

16

defendants, thereby prejudicing Skootle and its legitimate business product.

17

Twitter hopes to capitalize on the misleading characterization and improper grouping of

18

defendants with very differing conduct and potential culpability. Skootle is entitled to have Twitter’s

19

allegations against it stand or fall on their own without confusing and prejudicial reference to other

20

irrelevant “spammer” defendants.

21

III. TWITTER’S OPPOSITION, NOT THIS COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, IS
MOOT

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Twitter argues that this Court’s Order to Show Cause is moot because Twitter dismissed
without prejudice one defendant simultaneously with filing its response, and because it may later
dismiss another defendant if settlement terms are reached. Twitter has it backwards. Twitter’s
voluntary dismissal of certain defendants does not render moot this Court’s Order to Show Cause.
Rather, Twitter’s opposition is moot because if the remaining defendants are to be dismissed, then
there is no bona fide reason for Twitter to oppose severance.
-4SKOOTLE CORP. AND JAMES KESTER’S REPLY TO TWITTER, INC.’S RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. CV 12-1721 SI

1

This Court should order the remaining defendants to be severed from one another. If Twitter

2

later dismisses Harris or chooses not to prosecute that lawsuit, then that is Twitter’s prerogative. But

3

this Court should not decline to order severance of improperly joined defendants based on the mere

4

possibility that one of those defendants will be later dismissed.
CONCLUSION

5
6

Federal Rule 20(a) requires both a “question of law or fact common to all defendants” and the

7

“same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 20(a)(2).

8

There is no claim of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”

9

within the meaning of Federal Rule 20(a)(2) and these actions should be severed.

10
11

Respectfully submitted,
Date: July 9, 2012

COLT / WALLERSTEIN LLP

12
13
14
15

By:_______________________________
Doug Colt
Thomas E. Wallerstein
Nicole M. Norris
Attorneys for Skootle Corp. and James Kester

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5SKOOTLE CORP. AND JAMES KESTER’S REPLY TO TWITTER, INC.’S RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE
CASE NO. CV 12-1721 SI