Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-34

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 5/11/2012. (rss, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN DOES 1-34
Defendants

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil No. PJM 12-1195

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC has filed this suit against unidentified John Doe Defendants
1 through 34, alleging copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Specifically,
Plaintiff contends that Defendants illegally downloaded and/or uploaded the exact same portion
of its copyrighted adult motion picture (“the work”). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference [Docket No. 2]. For the
reasons that follow, the Court finds joinder of the Defendants improper and sua sponte SEVERS
all Defendants except Doe 1 from the case. The claims against the severed Defendants are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and with respect to Doe 1, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave.
I.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants used a file-sharing protocol called BitTorrent to illegally
download and/or upload the work over the Internet. BitTorrent facilitates the sharing of large
digital files and operates as follows: A user installs a BitTorrent client (i.e., a software
application) on his or her computer and selects a target file, known as a “seed,” to share with
other “peers.” The client divides the seed into pieces and assigns each a unique string of
alphanumeric characters called a “hash.” BitTorrent peers download pieces of the seed, and once

1

downloaded, those pieces become available to other peers. Through this process, one piece of a
seed may be obtained from multiple peers, not just the user who first made it available to
download. Once a peer has obtained all the pieces of a seed, the client reassembles the file by
comparing the hash values of each piece. If the reconstituted file is error free, it becomes a new
seed.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants swapped the exact same piece of the work, as identified
by its unique hash value, in the same torrent network.
II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) sets forth the requirements for permissive
joinder: “Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief asserted
against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
Federal courts across the country are divided over whether joinder is proper in cases
where defendants have allegedly swapped files via BitTorrent. See Cintel Films, Inc. v. Does 11,052, No. JFM 8:11-cv-02438, 2012 WL 1142272, at *4 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2012) (collecting
cases). Recent decisions in this judicial district have found joinder to be improper, and the Court
finds these decisions persuasive. See Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-108, No. DKC 113007, 2012 WL 1514807 (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2012); SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-57, No. RWT
12cv22, 2012 WL 1415523 (D. Md. Apr. 20, 2012); Cintel Films, 2012 WL 1142272.
Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants’ infringing conduct was part of “the same
transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences.” FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2).
Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants shared the exact same piece of the work after it was
converted into a seed is insufficient to satisfy Rule 20(a)(2). “[T]he better-reasoned decisions
2

have held that where a plaintiff has not pl[ed] that any defendant shared file pieces directly with
one another, the first prong of the permissive joinder is not satisfied.” SBO Pictures, 2012 WL
1415523, at *2 (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff never asserts that Defendants downloaded or
uploaded the same seed piece exclusively among themselves and thereby acted in concert.
Moreover, the distributed nature of the BitTorrent network means that at least some of the Doe
Defendants likely obtained the seed piece at issue from users not named in the Complaint. The
fact that the alleged infringement occurred over the course of a few months makes it even more
likely that Defendants’ conduct was unrelated, albeit similar. Because Plaintiff cannot satisfy the
first prong of the permissive joinder test, joinder is improper.
III.
The Federal Rules make clear that “[m]isjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing
an action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 21. The Court may instead, “[o]n motion or on its own, . . add or
drop a party.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court SEVERS all Defendants except
Doe 1 from the case and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against
those severed Defendants. With respect to Doe 1, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference [Docket No. 2].
A separate Order will ISSUE.

/s/
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
May 11, 2012

3