Bodyguard Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing Plaintiff, within fourteen days of this Order, to show cause in writing why the Court should not: (1) sever all defendants except the first defendant in this case; and (2) dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

BODYGUARD PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

Case No. C17-1647RSM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DOE 1, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter was filed on November 3, 2017. See Dkt. #1. Plaintiff Bodyguard Productions,

18

Inc., (“Bodyguard”) alleges seventeen Doe Defendants participated in the same BitTorrent

19
20
21

“swarm” to infringe the same unique copy of the movie The Hitman’s Bodyguard. Id. ¶¶ 10–14.
Because the identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown, Bodyguard filed a motion to expedite

22

discovery. Dkt. #5. The Doe Defendants are represented by Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses

23

which allegedly demonstrate they participated in on-line sharing of The Hitman’s Bodyguard

24
25
26
27

between 5:54 p.m. on September 17, 2017, and 10:42 a.m. on September 30, 2017. Dkt. #1, Ex.
B. Although the evidence of internet activity shows that hours, days, and in some cases weeks,
separated each defendant’s allegedly infringing conduct, Bodyguard alleges that all seventeen Doe

28

ORDER — 1

1
2

Defendants participated in a single BitTorrent “swarm,” and that the “swarm” aspect of their
alleged file-sharing justifies joinder of these defendants in a single lawsuit. See id. ¶¶ 18–24.

3

Although this is the first case filed by Bodyguard, its counsel has filed dozens of BitTorrent

4

cases against hundreds of doe defendants in this District. As the Court becomes more familiar

5
6
7

with these BitTorrent cases, concern about the potential for abuse in these matters has arisen. See,
e.g., Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1, et al., Case No. C17-988TSZ, Dkt. #27 ¶¶ 2 n.1 and 3. Bodyguard’s

8

counsel’s actions in this district are of particular concern, and the Court questions the propriety of

9

Bodyguard’s efforts to join several doe defendants in a single matter. See id.; also Cobbler

10
11
12
13
14

Nevada, LLC v. Kevin James, Case No. C15-1430-TSZ, Dkt. #78. Given these concerns, and
having reviewed the record in this and related cases, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall, within fourteen days of this Order, show cause in writing why the
Court should not: (1) sever all defendants except the first defendant in this case;
and (2) dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated this 27 day of November, 2017.

19

A

20
21

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER — 2