The Ledge Distribution, LLC v. Does 1-29

Filing 4

ORDER denying 3 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/15/13. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
THE LEDGE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, )
)

Plaintiff,
)

V.

)

)
DOES 1-29

Case No. CV413-017

)
)

Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff seeks permission to issue Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas
upon local internet service providers in order to obtain the names,
addresses, and other identifying information of each Doe defendant
alleged to have pirated its copyrighted work in a single BitTorrent
"swarm." Doc. 3. As in a related case before the undersigned, Voltage

Pictures, LLC v. Doe, No. CV413-037, doe. 7, 2013 WL 1339724 (S.D. Ga.
Apr. 1, 2013), this "swarm" lasted for nearly two months (from
November, 21, 2012 through January 16, 2013). Doe. 3-2 at 9. In

Voltage Pictures, the Court preliminarily denied pretrial discovery
because it was unclear whether all of the Doe defendants were actually

part of the same "swarm" or, rather, were parties to several separate
transactions or occurrences. CV413-037, doc. 7 at 6-7, 10-11. As there
was a strong possibility that the defendants were misjoined, the Court
expressed concern that the plaintiff intended to use the information
gained through discovery to shake down innocent Does who did not meet
the temporality requirement in such cases, or whose internet connections
were used improperly by others, but who might be intimidated into
paying "nuisance-avoidance" settlements. Id. at 8.
While the Court is mindful of plaintiff's contention that ISP data is
routinely purged and time is thus of the essence, it cannot overlook the
vast number of these lawsuits and their potential for abuse. Moreover,
there is a real concern that allowing discovery at this time might lead to
filing fee losses to the public, assuming misjoinder.

See, e.g., Zambezia

Film (Pty) Ltd. v. Does 1-33, 2013 WL 1181587 at * 1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20,
2013) (citing its misjoinder ruling in prior case involving the
"inappropriate packaging of defendants, an approach that sought to
proceed through payment of a single $350 filing fee, while separate suits
against the 300 claimed infringers for their discrete infringements would
have escalated that cost to $105,000.").
2

I'

Consequently, for the same reasons explained in Voltage, the Court
DENIES plaintiff's motion for discovery (doc. 3) until it has submitted
additional briefing supporting its assertion that every defendant Doe was
in fact part of the same swarm and is thus appropriately named as a
defendant in this case.
SO ORDERED this ____ day of April, 2013.

/

271iL

UNITED S1ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3