Donkeyball Movie, LLC v. Does 1-171
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50785
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Donkeyball Movie, LLC sues 171 unnamed BitTorrent users identified only by IPs for copyright infringement of Familiar Strangers.
- Putative defendant Kylauna McDonald seeks to prevent disclosure of identifying information and to dismiss from the suit.
- Court granted expedited discovery to ISP-subpoena defendants and required notices to putative defendants about challenges to release of information.
- Plaintiff obtained identifying information from ISPs, and in 2011 dismissed many putative defendants it did not intend to sue in this Court.
- McDonald moves to quash the subpoena under Rule 45, to obtain a protective order, and to dismiss for improper joinder and lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Court denies all McDonald’s motions, allowing continued discovery and potential later challenges at the merits stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena should be quashed under Rule 45 | Donkeyball argues subpoena essential to identify Doe defendants | McDonald argues undue burden and privacy concerns | Denied McDonald’s quash motion |
| Whether a protective order to shield identity is warranted | Donkeyball contends disclosure is necessary to protect Copyright | McDonald asserts privacy and anonymity rights | Denied protective order |
| Whether joinder of Does is proper under Rule 20 | Donkeyball asserts same transaction and common questions | McDonald argues improper joinder to be dismissed | Joinder proper at this stage |
| Whether McDonald is subject to personal jurisdiction | Discovery may establish jurisdiction over proper Doe defendants | McDonald argues lack of contacts; premature to rule | Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) is premature; jurisdictional discovery allowed |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is appropriate given uncertain contacts | Discovery needed to verify jurisdictional bases | N/A | Jurisdictional discovery is permissible at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GMBH & Co, KG v. Does 1-4,577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010) (denying motions to quash in BitTorrent cases; merits not relevant to subpoena validity)
- Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (permissive joinder and discovery considerations in Doe cases)
- London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Mass. 2008) (expedited discovery and consolidation in Doe cases; later merits considerations)
- Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (privacy interests in anonymity versus copyright enforcement; disclosures allowed)