WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does

Filing 12

ORDER quashing the subpoenas issued in this case, as follows (see order for details); directing Plaintiff to serve copy of this order on recipients of outstanding subpoenas and to file proof of service by 6/20/2017. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIO N that all Defendants except Cheri Busby be severed and dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 6/27/2017.Plaintiff is ordered to promptly serve a copy of this order and report and recommendation on any defendant who has not yet appeared, and to file proof of service of same by 6/20/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
WWE STUDIOS FINANCE CORP.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
CHERI BUSBY,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00897-MMD-NJK
ORDER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

16

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

17

through BitTorrent. See, e.g., Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 10, 14-35; Docket No. 1-1 (identifying the IP addresses

18

for 24 Doe Defendants); Docket No. 11-1 (amended complaint with 11 named defendants). On May 23,

19

2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not (1) sever all defendants except

20

the first defendant, (2) dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice, and (3) quash the subpoenas

21

for discovery to the extent they pertain to any defendants other than the first named defendant. Docket No.

22

9 (citing Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-131, 280 F.R.D. 493 (D. Ariz. 2012); Hard Drive Prods., Inc.

23

v. Does 1-188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011); On the Cheap, LLC v. Does 1-5011, 280 F.R.D. 500

24

(N.D. Cal. 2011); LHF Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-20, 2016 WL 7423094 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2016); and ME2

25

Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-14, 2016 WL 6948333 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2016)). The deadline to respond to that

26

order to show cause was set for June 6, 2017. Id. To date, no response has been filed.

27

The Court hereby ORDERS that the subpoenas issued in this case are QUASHED, as follows.

28

Given Plaintiff’s recent amendment naming 11 Defendants in this case, the Court hereby QUASHES the

1

outstanding subpoenas regarding any Doe Defendant who has not been identified.1 Plaintiff is ORDERED

2

to promptly serve a copy of this order on the recipient(s) of any outstanding subpoenas, and shall file a

3

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

4

the subpoenaed information for a period of at least 60 days from the date of the issuance of this order, so

5

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

6

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

7
8

The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that all Defendants except Cheri Busby be SEVERED
and DISMISSED without prejudice.2

9
10

Plaintiff is ORDERED to promptly serve a copy of this order and report and recommendation on
any defendant who has not yet appeared, and shall file a proof of service of the same by June 20, 2017.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED

12

Dated: June 13, 2017

13
________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16

NOTICE

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23
1

24

Hence, it appears this order in this case is limited to quashing the subpoena served on CenturyLink.
Compare Docket No. 1-1 with Docket No. 11-1.

25
2

26
27
28

Although Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause in this case, its counsel did respond
to orders to show cause on these same issues in other cases brought by other Plaintiffs. Concurrently
herewith, the undersigned is issuing orders and reports and recommendations in these other cases that more
fully elaborate why joinder is improper. See, e.g., ME2 Prods., Inc. v. Bayu, Case No. 2:17-cv-00724-JCMNJK; LHF Prods., Inc. v. Kabala, Case No. 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK.
2

1

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

2

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

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3