Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-7

Filing 14

ORDER AND OPINION AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re Joinder and Subpoenas Entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 2/11/13. 13 Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to Effectuate Service on Defendant GRANTED. Objections to R&R due by 2/28/2013. SEE FULL ORDER. (SW, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 11 February, 2013 03:55:28 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

IN RE BITTORRENT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASES,
Case No. 12-1188, Malibu Media v. Does 1-34
Case No. 12-1189, Malibu Media v. Does 1-7
Case No. 12-1258, AF Holdings v. John Doe
Case No. 12-1259, Ingenuity 13 v. John Doe
Case No. 12-1260, Ingenuity 13 v. John Doe
Case No. 12-1280, Malibu Media v. Does 1-9
Case No. 12-1281, Patrick Collins v. Does 1-7
Case No. 12-1341, Third Degree Films v. Does 1-24
Case No. 12-1342, Malibu Media v. John Does 1-12
Case No. 12-1398, AF Holdings v. John Doe
Case No. 12-1493, Malibu Media v. Does 1-4

ORDER AND OPINION AND REPORT and RECOMMENDATION
These cases are but a few of the thousands of mass copyright infringement cases
filed across the country by purveyors of pornographic films. These actions are filed
against “John Doe” defendants accused of using peer-to-peer technology to illegally
download copyrighted files from the Internet.
This Order addresses two issues that are presented in all or many of the cases
captioned above. First, the Plaintiffs have joined multiple John Doe defendants, some of
whom have moved to dismiss or sever for improper joinder. Second, in many of these
cases, certain subpoenas were authorized and issued, and there are challenges to the
scope of those subpoenas.

1

I. JOINDER
A. Generally
A number of the John Does have raised the issue of whether it is legally proper
for the Plaintiffs to have joined multiple defendants in a single case. The basics of joinder
are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants may be joined in a
single action if: “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in
the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series
of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all
defendants will arise in the action.” FRCP 20(a)(2). This essentially requires claims
asserted against joined parties to be “logically related.” Benitez v American Standard
Circuits Inc., 678 FSupp2d 745, 769 (ND Ill 2010); Disparte v Corporate Executive Bd.,
223 FRD 7, 10 (DDC 2004). This is a flexible test, and courts seek the “broadest possible
scope of action.” Lane v Tschetter, 2007 WL 2007493 at *7 (DDC) (quoting UMW v
Gibbs, 383 US 715, 724 (1966)).
The purpose of joinder under Rule 20 is “to promote trial convenience and
expedite the final resolution of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits, extra
expense to the parties, and loss of time to the court as well as the litigants appearing
before it.” West Coast Productions, Inc. v Does 1–5,829, 275 FRD 9, 15 (DDC 2011)
(quoting M.K. v Tenet, 216 FRD 133, 137 (DDC 2002)). The two prongs of Rule 20(a)
are thus “liberally construed in the interest of convenience and judicial economy … in a
manner that will secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action.”
Spaeth v Michigan State University College of Law, 845 FSupp2d 48, 53 (DDC 2012)
(quoting Davidson v District of Columbia, 736 FSupp2d 115, 119 (DDC 2010)). Indeed,

2

“the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with
fairness to the parties; [and] joinder of claims, parties, and remedies is strongly
encouraged.” United Mine Workers of America v Gibbs, 383 US 715, 724 (1966).
The breadth of permissive joinder is not unlimited. For example, the fact that
defendants allegedly violated the same trademark does not mean that the plaintiff’s claim
against them arose out of the same transaction or occurrence. SB Designs v Reebok
International Ltd., 305 FSupp23d 888 (ND ILL 2004). Compare, Androphy v Smith &
Nephew Inc., 31 FSupp2d 620 623 (ND Ill 1998)(same, patent infringement); Direct TV
Inc v Collins, 244 FRD 408 (SD Ohio 2007)(downloading same encrypted satellite signal
not justify joinder where defendants did not act in concert with each other); Bridgeport
Music Inc. v 11C Music, 202 FRD 229 (DC Tenn 2001)(infringement of copyrighted
music); Golden Scorpio Corp. v Steel Horse Bar & Grill, 596 FSupp2d 1282 (D Ariz
2009)(joinder not allowed against 12 restaurants using trademark “Steel Horse” in
businesses across the country in trademark infringement case, because the acts of
infringement were separate and distinct). These cases make clear that alleging the same
type of harm is not enough to justify joinder, because each act of infringement is a
separate occurrence. There must be more.
Even if joinder is appropriate, Rule 20(b) provides that “[t]he court may issue
orders—including an order for separate trials—to protect a party against embarrassment,
delay, expense, or other prejudice that arises from including a person against whom the
party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party.” FRCP 20(b).
Misjoinder occurs when the “preconditions of permissive joinder set forth in Rule
20(a) have not been satisfied.” Walgreen Co. v Networks – USA V, Inc., 2012 WL

3

6591810 at *1 (ND Ill); Disparte, 223 FRD at 12 (citations omitted); Malibu Media LLC
v John Does 1-14, 2012 WL 6115653 at *6 (ND Ind). The trial court has broad discretion
under the Rules governing joinder and severance. Chavez v Illinois State Police, 251 F3d
612, 632 (7th Cir 2001); Otis Clapp & Son, Inc. v Filmore Vitamin Co., 754 F2d 738, 743
(7th Cir 1985). The focus is on judicial economy and avoiding prejudice to the litigants.
Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 states that “[m]isjoinder of parties is not a
ground for dismissing an action” and the court may remedy improper joinder by
“drop[ping]” a party and severing the claim against that party. FRCP 21. The remedy for
misjoinder therefore creates separate actions containing the same claims against the
dropped defendant. See Bailey v Fulwood, 780 FSupp2d 20, 26 (DDC 2011); In re
Brand–Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 264 FSupp2d 1372, 1376 (JPML
2003) (“[S]everance of claims under Rule 21 results in the creation of separate actions.”).
Given that joinder and severance are interrelated, courts have read Rule 21 in
conjunction with Rule 42(b), which allows the court to sever claims in order to avoid
prejudice to any party. Tenet, 216 FRD at 138; see also FRCP 42(b) (“For convenience,
to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of
one or more separate issues, claims, cross claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.”).
Consequently, in addition to the two requirements of Rule 20(a)(2), courts also consider
whether joinder would prejudice any party or result in needless delay. See Lane v
Tschetter, 2007 WL 2007493, at *7 (DDC); Tenet, 216 FRD at 138.

4

B. BitTorrent Generally
A better understanding of BitTorrent is needed in order to assess the joinder
question.1 The BitTorrent protocol was developed by the Department of Defense as a
means of communication in the event normal communications were disrupted. If Person
A wants to communicate with Person B, but the direct link between them has been
broken, BitTorrent allows A to communicate with B over the internet by going through
others who have their own links to B, so the disrupted direct link does not prevent
communication between A and B.
Obviously, BitTorrent has many legitimate purposes. In recent years, however, it
has been used for nefarious purposes such as sharing of music and movies and other
copyrighted material without regard for copyright laws. Such is the situation in the cases
now before the Court, wherein each John Doe defendant is alleged to have used
BitTorrent to infringe on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights to various adult movies.
As is pertinent here, the process begins with one person who has obtained a copy
of a copyrighted movie and wishes to share it. Instead of sharing it directly, this first
person – known as the “seeder” – downloads the movie into BitTorrent. In turn,
BitTorrent breaks the movie into smaller pieces, often thousands of them. A “tracker,”
which is a permanent server on the internet that coordinates file distribution, assigns to
the movie itself and to each different piece of the movie a unique identifying number,

1

For this Order, I have relied on numerous other courts’ explanations of the BitTorrent
protocol and the manner in which members of a swarm interact with each other. In
particular, I have found particularly helpful Judge Randon’s discussion in Patrick Collins
Inc. v John Does 1-21, 2012 WL 1198040 at 4-5 (ED Mich). The IT staff of the Court has
also been extraordinarily helpful. That said, any errors in comprehension or terminology
are mine alone.
5

consisting of dozens of randomly-generated letters and numbers, known as a Hash
identifier. The tracker distributes the pieces of the movie to BitTorrent “clients,” the term
used for BitTorrent once installed on a specific computer. Once this is done, the “seeder”
is no longer necessary for the sharing process.
Information about the tracker and the movie is maintained on a “torrent” file. A
user who wants to obtain the movie must have BitTorrent installed on his computer. He
accesses the torrent file, and BitTorrent automatically connects to the tracker. The tracker
responds by providing to the BitTorrent client a list of “peers” who have the various
pieces of the movie. The BitTorrent client then connects to those peers and begins
downloading pieces of the movie from them. Soon, an entire movie is assembled. Using
the Hash identifiers, BitTorrent compares this newly-assembled movie to the original
movie to make certain that all the pieces have been received and that all are correct and
not corrupted. At that point, the download is complete and the user has a completely
viewable copy of the movie.
The people who participate in BitTorrent sharing are called “peers,” and
cumulatively the peers are referred to as a “swarm.” The purpose of a swarm is to share a
particular torrent file. Once a client downloads a particular file, the client becomes a peer
and hence a member of the swarm. As long as a peer continues to run BitTorrent, sharing
continues. A peer need not do anything at all to share with future clients who visit the
torrent site; as long as the program is not disabled, his BitTorrent client continually and
automatically shares the piece[s] of the movie when so directed by the tracker.

6

C. DISCUSSION
Courts across the country are divided over the propriety of joining in a single case
numerous John Doe defendants, each of whom is alleged to have participated in a single
BitTorrent swarm. See cases cited in Malibu Media v Does 1-14, 2012 WL 6115653 (ND
Ind) at *6; and Malibu Media LLC v John Does 1-54, 2012 WL 3030302 (D Col). I have
reviewed all of the cases cited by those two courts, as well as many more, and I find most
persuasive the cases concluding that joinder is improper under the circumstances
presented in the cases now before this Court.
Some of these cases found joinder improper because the complaint contained only
allegations that the defendants participated in a common swarm; these courts believed
that this was insufficient to support a finding that their alleged conduct arose out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as Rule 20 requires.
See, for example, Pacific Century International v Does 1-31, 2012 WL 2129003 at
*3(ND Ill).
Other cases in which the complaint included more specific allegations also
declined joinder. For example, in In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement
Cases, 2012 WL 1570765 at *11 (EDNY), the Court found that the allegations of the
complaint were insufficient to show that the anonymous defendants had shared file bits
with each other. See also, SBO Pictures Inc. v Does 1-57, 2012 WL 1415523 at *2 (D
Md) (no joinder where no allegation that any defendant shared file pieces directly with
another); Hard Drive Productions Inc. v Does 1-188, 809 FSupp2d 1150, 1164 (ND Cal
2011) (no concerted action where no pleading that any particular defendant shared
plaintiff’s work with any other particular defendant).

7

Using these cases as a guide, it is apparent that there is no right or wrong answer
that applies across the board to all cases. Rather, the propriety of joinder depends on the
specific allegations of the complaint and whether those allegations meet Rule 20’s
requirements that the transactions be logically related, showing that the defendants acted
“in concert” with each other, and that there be a common question of law or fact.
In the instant cases, the Complaints each include boilerplate language from Rule
20: the infringements are alleged to have been “part of a series of transactions, involving
the exact same torrent file containing ... Plaintiff’s copyrighted Works, and was
accomplished by the Defendants acting in concert with each other, and … there are
common questions of law and fact.”
In support of this boilerplate language, the complaints include more specific
allegations based on what Plaintiffs’ various investigations revealed. Each of the
complaints allege as follows. Each Doe installed a BitTorrent client onto his computer
and then accessed the torrent file and copied a piece of the Work. On certain dates, each
Doe’s computer connected to the investigator’s computer to transmit a full copy or a part
of a file identified by the Hash identifier. The Plaintiff’s investigator then “reassembled”
the pieces which resulted in a fully playable motion picture identical or substantially
similar to the Work. This, says the complaints, shows that each Doe participated in the
same swarm and communicated directly with other members of that swarm.
The flaw in this analysis is the final statement. The summary of the investigator’s
reports (attached to the complaints) reveals that each one of the Does’ computers showed
exactly the same unique Hash identifier. If that is true, then “reassembly” of all those
files could not possibly result in the creation of a full version of the Work. It would

8

instead result in either 9 copies of the same piece or 9 copies of the entire Work. All it
suggests is that (1) at some point in time each Doe’s client downloaded the Work or part
of the Work and (2) on various dates each Doe’s client shared that Work or piece of the
Work with the investigator. Hence, the allegations of the complaints, as supplemented by
exhibits, are inconsistent with the boilerplate allegation that the Does, or their computers
ever communicated with each other. At best, this simply amplifies the statement that the
Does were part of the same swarm, insufficient to support joinder.
Moreover, the dates on which the Does allegedly downloaded were often weeks
or even months apart. In not one of these cases are there 2 Does whose downloads to the
investigator occurred on the same date. This further undermines any allegation that the
Does acted “in concert.” See, Raw Films, Ltd. v Does 1-32, 2011 WL 6840590 at *2 (ND
Ga).
The exhibits to the Complaints negate any inference that might be drawn from the
boilerplate allegations that the Does’ acts were part of the same transaction. Instead they
show that each Doe defendant’s computer communicated via BitTorrent with the
investigator’s computer on different dates over the course of weeks or months and that at
some prior time each of the Does had downloaded the same movie. Despite the
boilerplate language, what we have in each case are a number of separate and discrete
transactions in which computers owned by various unrelated individuals used the same
software to access the same internet file and, at a different time, their computers talked
via BitTorrent to the same person. These are no more the “same transactions” than would
be the case if a multiple people used credit cards on different dates to buy an identical
product from Amazon.com.

9

But could the claims against these Does be deemed to arise from the same “series
of transactions” so that Rule 20 would nonetheless authorize permissive joinder? None
of the cases reviewed by the Court would justify such a conclusion, and in fact such a
holding would invalidate decades of precedent in patent, copyright and trademark
litigation. If the same defendant repeatedly infringes, then all of those acts of
infringement may be joined as a “series.” If different parties infringe, there is no basis for
joinder simply because they infringe the same copyright, patent or trademark.
Even if I were to have concluded that joinder was proper, under Rules 20(b), 21
and 42(b), this Court retains the discretion to sever the claims against the various Doe
defendants. See, In re BitTorrent Cases, 2012 WL 1570765 at *11 (EDNY), citing Third
Degree Films v Does 1-131, 2012 WL 692993 at *3 (D Ariz). That discretion is bounded
by principles of fundamental fairness and is to be guided with an eye to preventing
prejudice to either side. In re BitTorrent Cases, 2012 WL 1570765 at *11; Pacific
Century Intern. Ltd. V Does 1-101, 2011 WL 5117424 at *3. Courts may also consider
factors such as the motives of the parties and whether joinder would confuse or
complicate the issues. SBO Pictures v Does 1-3036, 2011 WL 6002620 at *3.
While there will undoubtedly be some common questions of fact, the common
questions are far outweighed by the panoply of individual defenses raised by the Does in
these cases. These defenses include challenges to the reliability of the Plaintiffs’
investigatory techniques, questions about personal jurisdiction, limits imposed by the
First Amendment, lack of computer savvy, and misidentification of the actual peer. These
defenses far outweigh the common questions in terms of discovery and presentation of

10

evidence. There is no question that joinder has necessitated the expenditure of a great
deal of judicial resources. As one court has noted,
It is likely that Defendants would assert different factual and legal defenses, and
would identify different witnesses. Case management and trial ... would be
inefficient, chaotic, and expensive. Joining Defendants to resolve what at least
superficially appears to be a relatively straightforward case would in fact
transform it into a cumbersome procedural albatross. These difficulties would
place tremendous burden on Defendants as well. To provide two illustrative
examples, each Defendant would have the right to be present at every other
Defendant's depositions—a thoroughly unmanageable and expensive ordeal.
Similarly, pro se Defendants, who most likely would not e-file, would be required
to serve every other Defendant with a copy of their pleadings and other
submissions throughout the pendency of the action at substantial cost. The court
cannot permit a case to proceed in this manner.
Pacific Century, 2011 WL 5117424 at *3, cited in In re BitTorrent Cases, 2012 WL
1570765 at *12.
In the seven multi-defendant cases in the Peoria Division of the Central District of
Illinois, the Plaintiffs paid $2450 in filing fees. In those same seven cases, there are 97
John Doe defendants. Had these cases been filed as single defendant cases, the Plaintiffs
would have paid nearly $34,000 in filing fees.2 28 USC §1914(a). As one court has noted,
this joinder strategy has wrongfully deprived the federal courts of their statutory due. In
re Diet Drugs, 325 FSupp2d 540, 541-42 (ED Pa 2004), cited in In re BitTorrent Cases,
2012 WL 1570765 at *12.
A number of courts in BitTorrent cases have recognized the effect of joinder on
the court as well as on the John Doe defendants:
... these mass copyright infringement cases have emerged as a strong tool for
leveraging settlements—a tool whose efficacy is largely derived from the
2

There are more of these cases pending in the other divisions of this Court, so the actual
fiscal impact on this District as a whole is even more substantial.
11

plaintiffs' success in avoiding the filing fees for multiple suits and gaining early
access en masse to the identities of alleged infringers.
Pacific Century, 2011 WL 5117424 at *3, cited in In re BitTorrent Cases, 2012 WL
1570765 at *12 that has been demonstrated in a number of the cases pending here. For
example, in case 12-1188, 24 of the original 34 Does have now been voluntarily
dismissed, presumably because they have paid some amount to settle the claim before
their names were linked to pornography.
E. Recommendation
For all of these reasons, I conclude that principles of fundamental fairness and
judicial economy dictate that permissive joinder not be allowed and that the Plaintiffs’
claims against multiple defendants be severed from the first-named remaining3 defendant.
I therefore RECOMMEND that the Plaintiffs claims be dismissed without prejudice as to
all defendants except one individual John Doe in each case, as shown in the following
chart:
Case No. 12-1188 Malibu Media v. Does 1-34
Case No. 12-1189 Malibu Media v. Does 1-7
Case No. 12-1280 Malibu Media v. Does 1-9
Case No. 12-1281 Patrick Collins v. Does 1-7
Case No. 12-1341 Third Degree Films v. Does 1-24
Case No. 12-1342 Malibu Media v. John Does 1-12
Case No. 12-1493 Malibu Media v. Does 1-4

John Doe #1
John Doe #4
John Doe #2
John Doe #2
John Doe #1
John Doe #1
John Doe #1

I further recommend that the Plaintiffs above and their counsel be directed that
any future actions of a similar nature filed in the Peoria Division of the Central District of
Illinois be filed as separate actions against each John Doe.

3

Plaintiffs have settled with many of the John Does, so not every case has a John Doe #1
remaining. The John Does shown in the chart are the lowest-numbered Does remaining in
each case.
12

II. SCOPE OF SUBPOENAS
In each of these lawsuits, Plaintiffs were unable to identify the alleged infringers
in any way other than by their IP addresses. They were therefore sued as John Does.
Immediately upon the filing of the complaints, each of the Plaintiffs filed ex parte
motions seeking leave to conduct discovery before a Rule 16 conference was held. They
asked for issuance of subpoenas to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provided
internet service to these John Does. Through these subpoenas, Plaintiffs would be able to
learn enough about the identities of the John Does to effect service on them. Subpoenas
were authorized. See Order (Doc. #5).
The Order required that the ISP notify its account holders (the John Doe
Defendants herein) of the subpoena before it released any information to the Plaintiff. As
a result of that notice, a number of the Doe defendants have filed various challenges to
the scope of the subpoenas that were authorized to be served on the ISPs. Specifically,
the challenge addressed in this Order is based on the underlying purpose of the
subpoenas: to enable Plaintiff to learn the identity of the John Does and obtain service of
process on them. For that purpose, the Does assert that the release by the ISP of any
information other than their names and geographic addresses is unnecessary.
I agree that there is no need for Plaintiffs to obtain a telephone number or an
email address or any other information over and above what is needed to effect service of
process. Some of the information Plaintiffs sought in their ex parte motions clearly
exceeded what was necessary for service. Because of the ex parte nature of the motions,
however, the concerns were not presented to the Court.

13

To this extent the motions to quash or modify are GRANTED. First, any
subpoena issued to a John Doe who has now been dismissed from these cases due to
improper joinder is QUASHED. Second, any remaining subpoena for the John Does
shown on the chart (p.12) is MODIFIED; it shall command production only of the names
and geographic addresses of those remaining John Does.
Finally, I note that some of the subpoenas in the captioned cases were issued
months ago. To the extent that information has already been provided by any of the ISPs
to any of the Plaintiffs in these cases, those Plaintiffs are ORDERED that their use of
information other than name and geographic addresses is prohibited, from the date of this
Order forward, until further order of this Court. The Plaintiffs are further ORDERED that
the use of any information provided by the IPSs for any purpose other than service of
process is prohibited, from the date of this Order forward, until further order of this
Court. Finally, the Plaintiffs and their counsel are put on notice that any future subpoenas
issued by this Court will be similarly limited, whether in these cases or in newly-filed
cases.
Many of the Does have raised other challenges to the scope of the subpoenas or
even to whether they should have been issued at all. In light of the ruling above on
joinder, it is not necessary to consider those arguments in this Order.
III. EXTENSIONS OF TIME
Finally, Plaintiffs have moved to extend the time within which they may serve the
John Doe Defendants in 12-1188 (Doc. #29); 12-1189 (Doc. #10); 12-1280 (Doc. #23);
12-1281 (doc. #13); 12-1341 (Doc. #8); and 12-1342 (Doc. #10). That is a reasonable
request, as service cannot be effected until the ISPs provide Plaintiffs with the names and

14

addresses of the remaining John Does. The Motions are GRANTED but only as to the
remaining Does listed in the chart above (at p.12).
III. CONCLUSION
As a result of the recommendation to sever, it is recommended that all motions
filed by any Doe other than the Does remaining after severance be found MOOT, without
prejudice to being re-filed should Plaintiff initiate additional lawsuits. This will result in
all Defendants’ motions being mooted except the Motion to Quash (Doc. #6) filed by
John Doe #4 in Case 12-1189. An order on that motion is entered separately this date.
If Plaintiffs decide to re-file their claims against the now-severed Does, those
claims shall be filed as new cases in the appropriate Division of the Central District of
Illinois. See Local Rule 40.1.
In addition, Plaintiffs’ motions for extension of time to serve is GRANTED as
stated herein.
IT IS ORDERED:
A. The subpoenas issued to ISPs are quashed except as they pertain to the John Does
shown in the chart above (p.12).
B. The remaining subpoenas issued to ISPs are modified as follows: the only information
that may be released by the ISPs to the Plaintiffs is the name and geographic address of
the IP account holder as to the John Does shown in the chart above (p.12).
B. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on the ISPs within 7 days of this date, and the
ISPs are ordered to provide a copy of this Order to all John Does (not just the John Does
shown in the chart) within 7 days thereafter.
C. Within 7 days after receipt of this Order, the ISPs are ordered to make all reasonable
attempts to identify the specific John Does shown in the chart above (p.12). Within 14
days thereafter, the ISPs shall provide the name and geographic address of those John
Does to the Plaintiff. No information about any of the other John Does shall be disclosed
by the ISPs.

15

D. Within 30 days after receipt of the information from the IPSs as to the remaining
Does, Plaintiffs shall effect service of process on the remaining Does.
E. To the extent that Plaintiffs may already have obtained information from ISPs on some
of the Does dismissed herein, the Plaintiffs are ORDERED that this information remain
confidential and not be used for any purpose other than effecting service of process, from
the date of this Order forward.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED:
A. That the Plaintiffs’ claims against all Does except those Does identified in the chart
(pp.12) above be dismissed without prejudice and
B. That the Clerk terminate all John Doe defendants except those Does identified in the
chart above.
The Plaintiffs are advised that any objection to or appeal of this Report and
Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk within 14 days after service of
this Order and Report and Recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P.72; 29 USC 636 . The John
Does are advised that any objection to or appeal of this Order and Report and
Recommendation must be filed on or before March 8, 2013.
Failure to object or appeal will constitute a waiver. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.,
170 F3d 734, 739 (7th Cir 1999); Video Views Inc. v Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F2d 538 (7th
Cir 1986).
ENTERED: February 11, 2013
s/ John A. Gorman
JOHN A. GORMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16