AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe
Filing
11
Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 12-2404 & 12-2405. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 06/12/2012. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
AF HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
JOHN DOE,
11
Defendant.
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Nos. 12-2404-SC
12-2405-SC
SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL
REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP
13
14
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the undersigned hereby
15
16
REFERS the cases listed above to District Judge Jeffrey S. White
17
for a determination of whether they are related to Case No. 12-
18
2392-JSW.
19
concurrently filed cases are related.
20
are identified below.
Judge White may also wish to inquire whether ten other
The concurrently filed cases
21
22
II.
BACKGROUND
23
On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC ("Plaintiff") filed
24
at least thirteen complaints in the Northern District, all alleging
25
copyright infringement by an unnamed John Doe defendant.
26
is captioned "AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe."
27
forth each case's number and the presiding judge as of the date of
28
this Referral:
Each case
The chart below sets
Presiding
12-2392
J. White
3
12-2393
J. Breyer
4
12-2394
J. Koh
5
12-2396
J. Chen
6
12-2397
J. Illston
7
12-2403
J. Breyer
8
12-2404
J. Conti
9
12-2405
J. Conti
10
United States District Court
Case No.
2
For the Northern District of California
1
12-2408
J. Hamilton
11
12-2411
J. Hamilton
12
12-2415
J. Lloyd
13
12-2416
J. Alsup
14
12-2417
J. Koh
15
16
The documents filed in these cases appear to be form
17
documents, materially identical except for one or two details.
18
example, the complaints appear to be materially identical except
19
for particulars contained in each pleading's fifth paragraph.
20
Other filings also appear to be form documents (e.g., form
21
declarations, form ex parte applications).
22
otherwise specified, citations in this referral are to docket
23
entries in Case No. 12-2404-SC, which provide representative
24
examples.
25
For
Accordingly, unless
In each case, Plaintiff identifies itself as "a limited
26
liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
27
Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis," and the copyright holder of
28
an adult entertainment film titled "Popular Demand" (the "Video").
2
1
ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 2-3.
Plaintiff always alleges that an
2
unnamed Doe defendant illegally downloaded the Video, and allowed
3
others to download it, using a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol
4
("BitTorrent").
5
Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036, 11-4220 SC, 2011 WL 6002620, at *1
6
n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011) (explaining BitTorrent technology and
7
terminology).
8
is unknown to Plaintiff.
9
only by an Internet Protocol address ('IP Address'), which is a
See generally Compl. ¶¶ 8-17; see also SBO
Each complaint recites that "Defendant's actual name
Instead, Defendant is known to Plaintiff
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
number assigned to devices, such as computers, that are connected
11
to the Internet."
12
between the complaints is the IP address, and hence the identity,
13
of the alleged defendant.
14
5 (IP address of 24.6.73.58) with Case No. 12-2405-SC, ECF No. 1 ¶
15
5 (IP address of 107.3.130.61); see also Case No. 12-2392-JRW, ECF
16
No. 1 ¶ 5 (IP address of 71.198.110.43).1
Compl. ¶ 5.
The only material difference
Compare Case No. 12-2404-SC, ECF No. 1 ¶
At the time of this writing, Plaintiffs have filed ex parte
17
18
applications for leave to take expedited discovery in the
19
undersigned's two cases, as well as the case assigned to Judge
20
White and most, but not all, of the similar cases filed in this
21
District.
22
parte applications seek to compel discovery from the Internet
23
Service Provider ("ISP") who, according to Plaintiff, owns the IP
24
address identified in the complaint.
See, e.g., ECF No. 8 ("EPA").
Each of Plaintiff's ex
E.g., id. at 1-2.
As with
25
26
27
28
1
All thirteen complaints appear to be identical but for the IP
address contained in paragraph 5. Plaintiff appears to have filed
a separate case for each IP address, perhaps mindful that judges in
the Northern District have, in similar cases, criticized the
practice of joining multiple unnamed defendants in a single action.
See, e.g., SBO Pictures, 2011 WL 6002620, at *2-4.
3
1
the complaints, the ex parte applications appear to be identical to
2
each other but for the IP address (which matches the one in the
3
complaint).
4
when it comes to name of the ISP from whom Plaintiff seeks
5
discovery.
6
been filed so far name only two ISPs.
7
Communications LLC ("Comcast").
8
ECF No. 8 at 2.
9
e.g., Case No. 12-2397-SI, ECF No. 10 at 2.2
United States District Court
Notably, the eleven ex parte applications that have
Nine refer to Comcast Cable
See, e.g., Case No. 12-2404-SC,
Two refer to SBC Internet Services ("SBC").
See,
Civil Local Rule 3-12(c) provides, in pertinent part, that
10
For the Northern District of California
The ex parte applications also differ from each other
11
"[w]henever a Judge believes that a case pending before that Judge
12
is related to another case, the Judge may refer the case to the
13
Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case with a request that the
14
Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case consider whether the
15
cases are related."
16
substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and
17
. . . [i]t appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome
18
duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the
19
cases are conducted before different Judges."
Cases are related when "[t]he actions concern
Civ. L. R. 3-12(a).
The undersigned believes the cases filed by Plaintiff in the
20
21
Northern District on or around May 10, 2012 may be related.
The
22
undersigned acknowledges that the Doe defendants may be different
23
in each case, assuming that the IP addresses represent different
24
defendants.
25
obtaining discovery from only two ISPs, Comcast and SBC.
But currently Plaintiff's efforts are directed at
26
27
28
2
At the time of this Referral, Plaintiff does not appear to have
filed an ex parte application in two of the cases pending in this
District: 12-2415-HRL and 12-2417-LHK. Perhaps coincidentally,
these are the only two cases assigned to judges seated in San Jose.
4
1
Experience suggests that most if not all of these cases will likely
2
settle very shortly after discovery is obtained from the ISPs, if
3
indeed it is.
4
(discussing settlement practices in this type of case).
5
undersigned is concerned about duplication of judicial resources
6
and the possibility of inconsistent rulings in what appear to be
7
virtually identical cases.3
The
The undersigned's review of those cases indicates that the
8
9
See SBO Pictures, 2011 WL 6002620, at *3-4
earliest-filed case is the one assigned to Judge White.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
III. CONCLUSION
12
Given the apparent similarity of the complaints and claims in
13
the two cases captioned above and the case before Judge White, the
14
undersigned REFERS Case Nos. 12-2404 and 12-2405 to Judge White
15
with a request that he determine whether these three cases are
16
related.
17
ten cases identified in this Referral, or any other cases, are also
18
related.
Judge White may also wish to determine whether the other
19
Dated: June 12, 2012
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Some colleagues have already ruled on the ex parte applications
pending before them, and some have referred the applications to
magistrate judges as discovery matters. See Case Nos. 12-2392, 122396, 12-2397, 12-2408, 12-2411, 12-2416 (granting ex parte
applications); 12-2393, 12-2403 (referred to magistrate).
5
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?