POW Nevada, LLC v. Doe 2 et al

Filing 8

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)

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 11 POW NEVADA, LLC, 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 Case No. C17-1649RSM ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DOE 2, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was filed on November 3, 2017. See Dkt. #1. Plaintiff POW Nevada, LLC, 18 (“POW”) alleges twelve Doe Defendants participated in the same BitTorrent “swarm” to infringe 19 20 21 the same unique copy of the movie Revolt. Id. ¶¶ 10–14. Because the identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown, POW has filed a motion to expedite discovery. Dkt. #4. The Doe 22 Defendants are represented by Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses which allegedly demonstrate that 23 the Doe Defendants participated in on-line sharing of the movie Revolt between 12:19 a.m. on 24 25 26 27 September 22, 2017, and 9:24 a.m. on September 27, 2017. Dkt. #1, Ex. B. Although the evidence of internet activity shows that hours, if not days, separated each defendant’s allegedly infringing conduct, POW alleges that all twelve Doe Defendants participated in a single BitTorrent “swarm,” 28 ORDER — 1                            1 2 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 second case filed by POW, 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. POW’s 8 counsel’s actions in this district are of particular concern, and the Court questions the propriety of 9 POW’s efforts to join several doe defendants in a single matter. See id.; also Cobbler Nevada, 10 11 12 13 14 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 20 A 21 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?