XPAYS, Inc. v. Does 1-34

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS with minor modifications; granting 24 MOTION to Dismiss or Sever; dismissing without prejudice all claims against defendant John Does 2-8, 10-17, 19-30 and 32-34; dismissing as moot 21 MOTION for Dis covery filed by John Doe defendants; quashing subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers related to defendant John Does 2-8, 10-17, 19-30 and 32-34; directing Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordinglfy at close of case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/9/2013. (dka, ) Modified on 7/10/2013 (dka, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
XPAYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-cv-928-JPG-SCW

DOES 1-34,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
41) of Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams recommending that the Court find plaintiff Xpays,
Inc. has improperly joined the defendants in this case, grant defendant John Doe 23’s motion to
dismiss or sever (Doc. 24), dismiss defendant John Does 2-34 without prejudice and with leave for
Xpays to file separate cases against each of those John Does, dismiss as moot all pending motions
by the dismissed John Doe defendants (Doc. 21), and quash the subpoenas issued to the Internet
Service Providers related to the dismissed John Doe defendants. With respect to the
recommended remaining defendant, John Doe 1, Magistrate Judge Williams further recommends
the Court issue a protective order allowing John Doe 1 to proceed anonymously until he enters his
appearance, and order the Internet Service Provider as to John Doe 1 to provide the subpoenaed
information as to John Doe 1.
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made.
Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.

1999).
The Court has received no objection to the Report. The Court has reviewed the entire file
and finds that, with the exception of the failure to acknowledge that John Does 9 and 18 have
already been dismissed with prejudice, the Report is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the
Court hereby:


ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 41) with minor modifications to reflect that plaintiff Xpays has
already voluntarily dismissed defendant John Does 9, 18 and 31 with prejudice (Docs. 15,
28 & 37);



GRANTS defendant John Doe 23’s motion to dismiss or sever (Doc. 24);



DISMISSES without prejudice all claims against defendant John Does 2-8, 10-17, 19-30
and 32-34;



DISMISSES as moot all pending motions by the dismissed John Doe defendants (Doc.
21);



QUASHES the subpoenas issued to the Internet Service Providers related to defendant
John Does 2-8, 10-17, 19-30 and 32-34; and



DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case.

By separate order, the Court will enter a protective order directing the Internet Service Provider for
John Doe 1 to respond to the subpoena relating to John Doe 1 and allowing John Doe 1 to proceed
anonymously until he enters his appearance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 9, 2013
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE