Bodyguard Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
BODYGUARD PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case No. C17-1648RSM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
DOE 1, et al.,
This matter was filed on November 3, 2017. See Dkt. #1. Plaintiff Bodyguard Productions,
Inc., (“Bodyguard”) alleges thirteen Doe Defendants participated in the same BitTorrent “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 has filed a motion to expedite
discovery. Dkt. #5. The Doe Defendants are represented by Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses
which allegedly demonstrate they participated in on-line sharing of The Hitman’s Bodyguard
between 7:44 a.m. on October 1, 2017, and 6:36 a.m. on October 22, 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 thirteen Doe
ORDER — 1
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.
Although this is one of two cases filed by Bodyguard, its counsel has filed dozens of
BitTorrent cases against hundreds of doe defendants in this District. As the Court becomes more
familiar 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 counsel’s actions in this district are of particular concern, and the Court questions
the propriety of Bodyguard’s efforts to join several doe defendants in a single matter. See id.; also
Cobbler 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27 day of November, 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER — 2
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?