808 Holdings, LLC v. Collective of December 30, 2011 Sharing Hash E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F29CD63C23C91ON, et al

Filing 10

ORDER Overruling 9 Objections filed by 808 Holdings, LLC to Magistrate Judge's Order; Severing Does; and Dismissing Action Against All Does Except Doe 1. The Court finds joinder of all Does except for Doe 1 to be improper in this case. Accordingly, the Court severs all Does except Doe 1 and Dismisses Without Prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the severed Doe defendants. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 3/5/2013.(leh)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

808 HOLDING, LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12

NO. 12-CV-215-MMA(RBB)
ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER; SEVERING DOES;
and DISMISSING ACTION
AGAINST ALL DOES EXCEPT
DOE 1

vs.

13
14
15
16

COLLECTIVE OF DECEMBER 30,
2011 SHARING HASH
E37917C8EEB4585E6421358FF32F2
9CD63C23C91ON, et al.,

[Doc. No. 9]

Defendants.

17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Plaintiff has filed objections to Magistrate

19

Judge Brooks’s thorough and well-reasoned Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to take

20

early discovery in the above-captioned matter. Upon de novo review of Judge

21

Brooks’s Order, Plaintiff’s objections, and the recent legal landscape related to

22

BitTorrent cases, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections. The Court further

23

finds joinder of all Does except for Doe 1 to be improper in this case. Accordingly,

24

the Court severs all Does except Doe 1 and DISMISSES without prejudice

25

Plaintiff’s claims against the severed Doe defendants.

26
27

This action involves allegations of copyright infringement against 54
unknown defendants. Plaintiff alleges the defendants infringed Plaintiff’s protected

28
-1-

12CV215

1

work through the use of “BitTorrent” file transfer protocol. Judge Brooks’s Order

2

accurately explains BitTorrent technology and provides the factual background

3

pertinent to this case.

4

The Court has reviewed Judge Brooks’s Order and has considered Plaintiff’s

5

objections and arguments. The Court finds Judge Brooks’s Order is well-reasoned

6

and free of legal error. A detailed discussion is not necessary here, as the Court fully

7

concurs with Judge Brooks’s analysis and conclusions.

8

Moving now to an issue that Judge Brooks did not have occasion to fully

9

consider, the Court determines whether the Doe defendants have been properly

10

joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 and whether severance is proper

11

under Rule 21, which allows the Court to sua sponte sever parties. Courts across the

12

country are split on whether joinder, severance, or both are proper in cases involving

13

BitTorrent technology. See Next Phase Distrib., Inc. v. Does 1-27, 284 F.R.D. 165

14

(S.D.N.Y. 2012). However, since the order issued in Next Phase Distribution, Inc.,

15

on July 31, 2012, district courts have increasingly followed cases in favor of

16

severing Doe defendants. Indeed, judges in this District have recently done the

17

same. See, e.g., Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1 through 34, No. 12-CV-1474-

18

GPC(BGS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20401 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013); Malibu Media,

19

LLC v. John Does 1-8, No. 12-CV-1054-LAB(DHB), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

20

168346 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1 through 9,

21

No. 12-CV-1436-H(MDD), Doc. No. 23 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012). In addition to the

22

above-cited cases from this District, the Court finds persuasive the reasoning set

23

forth by the courts in the following cases: R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-23, 2013

24

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23805 (D. Colo. Feb. 21, 2013); Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1, 2,

25

4-7, 11, 16, 17 & 21, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19404 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2013); Next

26

Phase Distrib., Inc. v. Does 1-27, 284 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). As Judge Burns

27

aptly noted, “[t]he caselaw is full at this point.” Malibu Media, LLC, 2012 U.S.

28
-2-

12CV215

1

Dist. LEXIS 168346 at *1. Thus, “[g]iven the amount of discourse already produced

2

by courts around the country on this issue, the Court finds it unnecessary to write a

3

lengthy opinion about whether joinder [and severance are] appropriate.” R&D Film

4

1, LLC v. Does 1-23, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23805, at *8 (D. Colo. Feb. 21, 2013).

5

The Court now joins Judge Huff, Judge Burns, and Judge Curiel of this District and

6

finds all Does except Doe 1 shall be severed.1

7

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes as follows:

8

1.

Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Brooks’s Order are OVERRULED; and

9

2.

Plaintiff’s claims against all Does other than Doe 1 are DISMISSED
without prejudice.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: March 5, 2013

13

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The Court acknowledges the opposite result reached in Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v.
Does, No. 11-CV-575-MMA(NLS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24232 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012).
However, the Court is certainly not bound by its decision in that case, and that Order is not
controlling in an unrelated case such as the one at bar. Having considered the landscape of this
issue since that Order issued in February 2012, the Court now limits the Order in Liberty Media
Holdings, LLC, to that case alone.
1

26
27
28

-3-

12CV215