Combat Zone, Inc. v. Does 1 - 22

Filing 25

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: As follows: In sum, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 23 .) Accordingly, Docket Number 12 hereby is or, by operation of Judge Boal's ruling, has been ALLOWED. The sole exception to dismissal is Doe 1. However, any subpoena issued in connection with Doe 1 has been quashed. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

COMBAT ZONE, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
DOES 1-22,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. NO. 12-cv-30086-MAP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR SEVER,
AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
(Dkt. Nos. 12 & 23)
March 14, 2013
PONSOR, U.S.D.J.
The background facts to this dismal litigation are set
forth in scrupulous detail in the Memorandum of Magistrate
Judge Jennifer C. Boal (Dkt. No. 23).1

The nature of the

litigation strategy of Plaintiff’s counsel necessitated a
messy flurry of combined dispositive and non-dispositive
motions in response by Defendant’s counsel.

Judge Boal’s

memorandum deftly addresses motions in both categories.
Some of the motions in this case seek a remedy of severance

1

See generally Third Degree Films v. Does 1-47, 286 F.R.D.
188 (2012) (Young, J.); Third Degree Films v. Does 1-72, No.
12-10760-FDS, 2012 WL 5464177 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2012)
(Saylor, J.); Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1 Through 10,
No. 2:12-cv-3623-ODW(PJWx), 2012 WL 5382304 (C.D. Cal. June
27, 2012).

or dismissal.

See Dkt. No. 12.

Judge Boal’s recommendation

as to these dispositive motions, or dispositive aspects of
pending motions, is to advise that the motion to sever be
allowed, except as to the first Defendant identified in this
case as Doe 1, and that Does 2-22 be dismissed without
prejudice to the cases being re-filed individually.

No

objection has been filed to this Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the substance of the Report and
Recommendation and finding it meritorious, and noting that
there is no objection, the court, upon de novo review,
hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23).
All pending motions to sever, or portions of motions seeking
severance, are hereby ALLOWED, and any pending motion to
dismiss is hereby ALLOWED as to all Defendants except Doe 1.
The upshot of this ruling is that Doe 1 will remain the only
Defendant in this case.
Judge Boal’s memorandum also ruled on the pending
Motions to Quash, or portions of motions seeking to quash,
twenty-two (22) subpoenas issued in this case.

This ruling

on pending non-dispositive motions became final when
Plaintiff failed to seek reconsideration in accordance with
the applicable rules.

Based on Judge Boal’s memorandum, all

twenty-two (22) subpoenas in this case have been quashed.
In addition, the court must observe that it presumes that
2

Plaintiff has fully complied, upon pain of contempt, with
the orders issued by Judge Boal in connection with her
ruling quashing the subpoenas, as set forth in Paragraphs 2
and 3 at page 16 of her Order (Dkt. No. 23).
In sum, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation.

(Dkt. No. 23.)

Accordingly, Docket Number

12 hereby is or, by operation of Judge Boal’s ruling, has
been ALLOWED.

The sole exception to dismissal is Doe 1.

However, any subpoena issued in connection with Doe 1 has
been quashed.
It is So Ordered.
/s/ Michael A. Ponsor
MICHAEL A. PONSOR
U. S. District Judge

3