Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-14

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Order Rather than dismissing this action for improper joinder, as it could do, this Court will allow plaintiff's counsel to amend the Complaint tendering either an amendment to the existing Complaint or a self-contained Amended Complaint on or before April 20, 2015. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/7/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1 - 14,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 2924

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has just received, as an addition to its calendar via random assignment, this
newly-filed action charging copyright infringement of a particularly well-credentialed major
motion picture, Dallas Buyers Club, 1 because the action as presented overreaches in terms of its
proposed targeting of 14 "Doe" defendants, this memorandum opinion and order is issued sua
sponte to send plaintiff's counsel back to the drawing board to conform to the fundamental
principles of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules").
This Court's first encounter with the so-called BitTorrent protocol, which is involved in
this case, came in an action in which the plaintiff's counsel there sued "Does 1-300." Both
intuitively and as a result of its extensive treatment of joinder issues over the years, this Court
rejected that effort as major overkill -- an impermissible joinder of defendants such that

1

In 2014 that motion picture received six Academy Award nominations, including one
for Best Motion Picture of the Year. Although the movie itself did not receive that ultimate
award, two of its actors received Oscars: Matthew McConaughey as having rendered the Best
Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role and Jared Leto as having provided the Best
Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role. Indeed, McConaughey and Leto had received
those identical awards at the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild ceremonies.

plaintiff's counsel sought to expend just $400 in a filing fee rather than the potential $120,000
that would have been payable for 300 separate lawsuits.
Because the BitTorrent piracy phenomenon had become a major cottage industry, this
Court (like its colleagues and other judges around the country) continued to receive and deal
with like complaints until it encountered a quite incredible visit from the fabled Prince of
Serendip: It turned out that one of its two then law clerks, a recent graduate of the University of
Michigan Law School where she had been a member of its Law Review, had been the rewrite
editor for a student note to be published in the then forthcoming issue of the Law Review that
dealt with the precise issue posed by the BitTorrent situation and its accompanying swarm
syndrome. This Court promptly ruled orally to dismiss the action before it as presented. Later it
followed the same path in Zambezia Film Ltd. v. Does 1-33, 13 C 1323 and 13 C 1741, 2013
WL 1181587 (March 20, 2013). Its opinion in Zambezia, a copy of which is attached because it
bears directly on the current case, explained the ruling and quoted favorably from the student
note.
In this instance Complaint Ex. C shows that the 14 targeted defendants' claimed
infringements span a period of a full month, from December 24, 2014 to January 26, 2015. That
time frame involves the same flaw that has led to the dismissal of several BitTorrent cases
assigned to this Court. 2 Rather than dismissing this action for improper joinder, as it could do,
this Court will allow plaintiff's counsel to amend the Complaint to conform to the view proposed
by the student author, tendering either an amendment to the existing Complaint or a self-

2

Because this Court naturally shared the information about the Michigan Law Review
note with its colleagues in this judicial district, a number of them have followed suit in adopting
the same approach.
-2-

contained Amended Complaint on or before April 20, 2015. On receipt of that revised pleading
this Court would anticipate the issuance of its customary initial scheduling order.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: April 7, 2015

-3-

ATTACHMENT