Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1 through 11
Filing
9
ORDER granting Motion to Sever. In the above-captioned case and all other Malibu Media cases assigned to the undersigned Judge, the claims against all Does other than Doe No. 1 are dismissed without prejudice. Malibu Media may sue the severed Does se parately and individually. As for the subpoenas related to the severed Does, Defendants' motion to quash is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file this Order in all Malibu Media cases assigned to the undersigned Judge. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/16/12.(kaj)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
CASE NO. 12-CV-1054-LAB-DHB
9
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEVER
vs.
10
11
12
JOHN DOES 1-8,
Defendants.
13
14
The question here is whether members of a BitTorrent “swarm” who share and
15
download copyrighted pornography can be joined as defendants and sued for copyright
16
infringement together. It’s an interesting question, and as the parties well know district
17
courts across the country are divided on it—though not evenly. With all due respect to the
18
parties’ efforts in briefing the question, the undersigned Judge isn’t inclined to venture a
19
decision here that rises above all of the others that are out there. The question has been
20
certified for interlocutory appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and until it or another Court of Appeals
21
rules it seems restraint at the district court level is the best course. The caselaw is full at this
22
point; the parties just need the undersigned Judge to take sides in this case so it can go
23
forward in one form or another.
24
With that in mind, the undersigned Judge concurs with Judge Huff’s thoughtful
25
decision in Patrick Collins v. John Does 1 through 9, Case No. 12-CV-1436, Doc. No. 23
26
(S.D. Cal Nov. 8, 2012). Judge Huff recognized that Malibu Media’s theory of joinder “has
27
met with mixed results in the courts,” but that “the majority view among district courts within
28
the Ninth Circuit is that allegations of swarm joinder are alone insufficient for joinder.” Id. at
-1-
1
4. She concluded that “the interests of avoiding undue prejudice and jury confusion, as well
2
as judicial efficiency and fundamental fairness, are better served by severing [the John Doe
3
defendants] and requiring [the plaintiff] to file separate cases against each defendant
4
individually.” Id. at 7. The motion to sever is therefore GRANTED. In the above-captioned
5
case and all other Malibu Media cases assigned to the undersigned Judge, the claims
6
against all Does other than Doe No. 1 are dismissed without prejudice. Malibu Media may
7
sue the severed Does separately and individually.
8
Defendants also ask the Court to quash all outstanding subpoenas for the severed
9
Does’ identities from their respective internet service providers. An amicus brief filed by
10
Verizon appears to go further, and suggest that all ISP subpoenas should be quashed. The
11
Court’s Magistrate Judges have discussed these BitTorrent cases and agreed to restrict
12
early discovery from ISPs to those Doe defendants whose IP addresses originate in this
13
judicial district. See, e.g., 808 Holdings v. Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash,
14
Case No. 12-CV-186, Doc. No. 8 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012).
15
Magistrates’ judgment, and therefore respectfully disagrees with Verizon.
16
subpoenas related to the severed Does, Defendants’ motion to quash is GRANTED. If
17
Malibu Media decides to sue the severed Does separately and individually, it may seek early
18
discovery from the Magistrate assigned to the new cases.
19
20
The Court respects the
The Clerk of Court is directed to file this Order in all Malibu Media cases assigned to
the undersigned Judge.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 16, 2012
24
25
As for the
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
26
27
28
-2-
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?