Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-84

Filing 34

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 32 plaintiff's Motion clarification; and denying 33 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Seek Reconsideration. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2011)

1
2

*E-FILED 12-19-2011*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C11-03648 HRL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK
RECONSIDERATION

v.
DOE 1,

[Re: Docket Nos. 32 and 33]
15

Defendant.
/

16
17

Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions sues for alleged copyright infringement, claiming that

18

84 Doe defendants used BitTorrent to download or distribute plaintiff’s film. Someone

19

identified only as “Alleged Doe 68.105.97.108” moved for severance and dismissal. This court

20

severed and dismissed all but Doe 1,1 without prejudice to plaintiff to file individual actions

21

against Does 2-84. Because all but Doe 1 had been dismissed, all pending motions to quash

22

and/or for protective order (none of which appeared to have been filed by Doe 1), were deemed

23

moot.
Plaintiff now seeks leave to move for reconsideration as to whether “Alleged Doe

24
25

68.105.97.108” had standing to move for severance or dismissal. Plaintiff also requests

26

clarification as to whether or not this court’s prior order actually quashed outstanding

27

subpoenas that have been issued as to Does 2-84. Noting that “[s]ubstantially all of the

28
1

is Doe 1.

Based on the IP Address, it is not apparent that “Alleged Doe 68.105.97.108”

1

subpoenas in this action were issued from other districts,” plaintiff contends that if this court

2

intended to grant any pending motions to quash, it had no jurisdiction to do so. (Mot. for

3

Clarification at 2). Plaintiff also argues that it is entitled to know the identities of “Doe 1’s co-

4

conspirators” and that there is no basis for quashing or limiting the discovery sought by the

5

outstanding subpoenas anyway.

6

Both motions are denied.

7

A party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show that “a material

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought” and that “in the exercise of reasonable

10

diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the

11
For the Northern District of California

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the

9

United States District Court

8

interlocutory order.” CIV. L.R.7-9(b)(1). Reconsideration may also be appropriate where the

12

requesting party shows the “emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after

13

the time of such order” or a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

14

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.”

15

CIV. L.R. 7-9(b)(2), (3). However, on a motion for leave to seek reconsideration, parties are

16

expressly prohibited from repeating any argument made in support of or in opposition to the

17

ruling the party seeks to have reconsidered.

18

Plaintiff presents no binding authority, a change in the material facts or law, or any

19

factors not already considered by this court. Indeed, plaintiff merely repeats its argument on the

20

standing issue. Plaintiff complains that the court did not expressly address the standing issue in

21

its prior order. The court found it unnecessary to do so. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil

22

Procedure, which was cited in the court’s prior order, provides that “[o]n motion or on its own,

23

the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party” and may also “sever any claim

24

against a party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (emphasis added). Moreover, the court finds no need to

25

clarify whether it actually quashed any outstanding subpoenas as to Does 2-84. Those Does are

26

no longer part of this lawsuit, and plaintiff no longer has a basis for seeking discovery as to

27

them. As stated in the court’s prior order, any motions to quash and/or for protective order filed

28
2

1
2
3

by those now dismissed Does are moot.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD

4

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:11-cv-03648-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Brett Langdon Gibbs

[e-mail]

3

Michael Bruce Stone

[e-mail]

4

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4