Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. DOES 1-1,062
770 F. Supp. 2d 332
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Three copyright owners allege BitTorrent-based infringement by numerous unnamed defendants across three cases (Wild, Maverick, Donkeyball).
- Guardaley identified infringing users and provided IP addresses without identifying information.
- Court granted expedited discovery to obtain ISP-derived names, addresses, emails, phones, and MAC addresses for these IPs.
- Time Warner sought to quash or modify subpoenas, arguing undue burden and proposed production limits.
- Court held joinder proper under Rule 20; personal jurisdiction and First Amendment anonymity issues were addressed but not conclusively decided at this stage; Maverick subpoena quashed for improper service; Wild and Donkeyball subpoenas denied on quash.
- Ultimately, subpoenas stand in Wild and Donkeyball; Maverick quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is permissive joinder under Rule 20(a)(2) proper here? | Joinder is logical; defendants share same transaction/occurrence. | Joinder may prejudice or be improper given separate infringements. | Joinder proper at this stage. |
| Do putative defendants have sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction? | Jurisdiction can be established with discovery; common BitTorrent activity touches multiple jurisdictions. | Personal jurisdiction must be evaluated later; record is insufficient. | Premature to decide; jurisdictional discovery allowed. |
| Does the First Amendment anonymity shield the putative defendants from disclosure? | Anonymous BitTorrent activity should be discoverable to protect copyrights. | Right to anonymity protects online speakers; should limit disclosure. | Sony five-factor test supports overridden anonymity for identifying information. |
| Are Time Warner's subpoenas unduly burdensome under Rule 45(c)? | Production is necessary; costs are manageable under court orders; IP lookups limited. | Burden and costs are excessive given volume of IPs. | Wild and Donkeyball subpoenas denied quash; Maverick quashed for improper service. |
| Was there a binding agreement to limit IP lookups (28 per month) in Wild? | Agreement existed to limit production. | No meeting of minds; no binding term. | No enforceable contract; no limit to production. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE New Media Services Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (long-arm and due process considerations in jurisdictional analysis)
- Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (permissive joinder and discovery in copyright cases)
- Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GMBH & Co, KG v. Does 1-4,577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010) (permissive joinder and subpoenas in file-sharing cases)
- London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Mass. 2008) (contracting/expedited discovery and ISP subpoena context in copyright cases)
- Sony Music Entm't v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (five-factor test balancing plaintiff's need against anonymity rights in file-sharing)