ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does

Filing 22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that all Defendants except Defendant Archie Medes be SEVERED and DISMISSED without prejudice.To the extent any subpoenas remain outstanding in this case, they are hereby QUASHED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to promptly serve a copy of this order on the recipients of any outstanding subpoenas and shall file a proof of service by 6/20/2017. Plaintiff is ORDERED to promptly serve a copy of this order and report and recommendation, as well as the order and report and reco mmendation issued concurrently in Case No. 2:17-cv-00724-JCM-NJK on any defendant who has not yet appeared and shall file a proof of service by 6/20/2017. Objections to R&R due by 6/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
ARCHIE MEDES, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00114-JCM-NJK
ORDER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

16

This is one of dozens of cases alleging numerous defendants engaged in copyright infringement

17

through BitTorrent. On April 27, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why the Court should not

18

(1) sever all defendants except the first defendant, (2) dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice,

19

and (3) quash the subpoenas for discovery to the extent they pertain to any defendants other than the first

20

named defendant. Docket No. 13 (citing Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-131, 280 F.R.D. 493 (D. Ariz.

21

2012); Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011); On the Cheap, LLC

22

v. Does 1-5011, 280 F.R.D. 500 (N.D. Cal. 2011); LHF Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-20, 2016 WL 7423094 (E.D.

23

Va. Dec. 22, 2016); and ME2 Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-14, 2016 WL 6948333 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2016)).

24

Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 18.

25

Plaintiff represented that the legal arguments and analysis in the response filed in this case are the

26

same as those presented in ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Bayu, Case No. 2:17-cv-00724-JCM-NJK, Docket No.

27

14 at 2 (May 23, 2017). Concurrently herewith, the undersigned is issuing a report and recommendation

28

in that case that all but the first defendant be severed and dismissed without prejudice, as well as an order

1

quashing any outstanding subpoenas. For the same reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS in this case

2

that all Defendants except Defendant Archie Medes be SEVERED and DISMISSED without prejudice.

3

To the extent any subpoenas remain outstanding in this case, they are hereby QUASHED. Plaintiff

4

is ORDERED to promptly serve a copy of this order on the recipients of any outstanding subpoenas, and

5

shall file a proof of service of the same by June 20, 2017. The recipient(s) of any outstanding subpoenas

6

shall retain the subpoenaed information for a period of at least 60 days from the date of the issuance of this

7

order, so that it will be available if Plaintiff proceeds in a prompt manner against the remaining defendants

8

in new cases and obtains permission to seek early discovery in those cases.

9

Plaintiff is ORDERED to promptly serve a copy of this order and report and recommendation, as

10

well as the order and report and recommendation issued concurrently herewith in ME2 Productions, Inc.

11

v. Bayu, Case No. 2:17-cv-00724-JCM-NJK, on any defendant who has not yet appeared, and shall file a

12

proof of service of the same by June 20, 2017.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED

14

Dated: June 13, 2017

15
________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18

NOTICE

19

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in writing

20

and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held that the courts

21

of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the

22

specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file

23

objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues

24

waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the

25

District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

26

708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

27
28
2