853 F. Supp. 2d 545
D. Maryland2012Background
- Plaintiffs CineTel Films, Inc. and Family of the Year Productions sue 1,052 John Doe defendants for copyright infringement of I Spit on Your Grave via BitTorrent.
- Plaintiffs obtained an expedited discovery order and served Rule 45 subpoenas on ISPs to identify defendants by names, addresses, and contact info.
- Defendants move to sever, quash/modify subpoenas, seek protective orders, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction/venue, or challenge CineTel’s standing.
- Court addresses joinder under Rule 20(a)(2), finds no proper transactional linkage among hundreds of independent, timing-differentiated infringements, and severs all but Doe #37.
- Subpoenas for severed defendants’ identifying information are quashed except for Doe #37; protective orders are moot; certain jurisdiction/venue issues become moot due to severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder of Does 1-848 is proper under Rule 20 | Plaintiff argues common copyright claim against many Does supports joinder. | Defendants contend actions are separate and not the same transaction or common legal/factual questions. | Joinder improper; severed except Doe 37. |
| Whether subpoenas to ISPs should be quashed or modified for Doe defendants | Doe defendants’ identities are essential to proceed with the lawsuit. | Doe defendants claim privacy/privilege and undue burden concerns; quash subpoenas to protect privacy. | Subpoenas quashed for all Does except Doe 37 due to severance; no standing to quash speculative filings. |
| Whether protective orders are warranted to shield subscriber information | Protective orders unnecessary if Doe remain in case to prosecute claims. | Defendants seek anonymity and privacy protections. | Moot; protective orders denied as moot after severance. |
| Whether venue and personal jurisdiction defenses are moot before Doe identification | Court should retain jurisdiction and proceed with process. | Without identification, jurisdiction/venue defenses are premature. | Moot; only Doe 37 remains; jurisdiction/venue defenses to be addressed after identification. |
| Whether CineTel has standing to sue and should be removed as plaintiff | CineTel asserts ownership of the copyrights and rights in I Spit on Your Grave. | CineTel lacking independent copyright interest; standing questioned. | moot; severed defendants render the issue immaterial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (joinder encouraged but must satisfy rules; fairness)
- Sony Music Entm't, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (privacy interests yield to copyright enforcement; anonymous defendants)
- Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (BitTorrent swarm joinder insufficient; no single concerted action)
- Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1,062, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.D.C. 2011) (BitTorrent-related joinder not controlling; privacy/efficiency concerns)