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)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED 12-19-2011* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States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” 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” 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” 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 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com 3 Michael Bruce Stone michael.b.stone@att.net 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

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?