Media Products, Inc. v. Does 1 - 120
Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: In sum, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 50 .) Accordingly, Docket Numbers 15 , 23 , and 32 hereby are or, by operation of Judge Boal's ruling, have 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
MEDIA PRODUCTS, INC.,
C.A. NO. 12-cv-30100-MAP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR SEVER,
AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
(Dkt. Nos. 15, 23, 32 & 50)
March 14, 2013
The background facts to this dismal litigation are set
forth in scrupulous detail in the Memorandum of Magistrate
Judge Jennifer C. Boal (Dkt. No. 50).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 Defendants’ counsel.
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
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 15.
recommendation as to these dispositive motions, or
dispositive aspects of pending motions, is to advise that
the motions to sever be allowed, except as to the first
Defendant identified in this case as Doe 1, and that Does 2120 be dismissed without prejudice to the cases being refiled 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. 50).
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 exceptions to this ruling are Doe 10, Doe 11, Doe 13,
Doe 17, Doe 18, Doe 25, Doe 40, Doe 47, Doe 69, Doe 70, Doe
79, Doe 91, Doe 106, and Doe 110, who have already been
dismissed with prejudice.
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,
one hundred and twenty (120) 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 one hundred and twenty (120) subpoenas in
this case have been quashed.
In addition, the court must
observe that it presumes that 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 15 of her Order (Dkt.
In sum, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report and
(Dkt. No. 50.)
Accordingly, Docket Numbers
15, 23, and 32 hereby are or, by operation of Judge Boal’s
ruling, have been ALLOWED.
is Doe 1.
The sole exception to dismissal
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?