K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-37
296 F.R.D. 80
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Four BitTorrent copyright actions identified by IP addresses involve over 80 John Does, with more cases filed in the district by the same plaintiffs seeking identifying information from ISPs.
- Malibu 26, Malibu 11, and Patrick Collins allege ownership of copyrights; K-Beech relies on a copyright application (no registered copyright) for Gang Bang Virgins.
- Court previously allowed limited early discovery in a related K-Beech case via a protective procedure; order adopts similar approach to protect rights of all parties.
- Plaintiffs seek Rule 45 subpoenas to ISPs to identify subscribers (names, addresses, emails, phones, MACs); concerns raised about privacy and accuracy in mapping IPs to individuals.
- Court finds IP addresses often map to routers or shared networks, not individuals; zurt of abusive litigation tactics and improper mass joinder; limited discovery granted only for John Doe 1 in each action under strict conditions; others quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limited early discovery is permissible | Malibu/Patrick Collins seek identifying info to identify defendants. | K-Beech argues no valid basis due to lack of registration and privacy concerns. | Granted only for John Doe 1 with conditions; others denied. |
| Whether K-Beech has a valid copyright basis | K-Beech asserts ownership via copyright application. | Registration required under § 411(a); application alone insufficient. | K-Beech’s complaint lacking valid registered copyright; quash granted. |
| Whether joinder of Doe defendants is proper | Plaintiffs claim swarm joinder is appropriate for a single infringing act. | Defendants contend differing defenses and lack of common transaction. | Permissive joinder rejected; severance/avoidance of unfair outcomes favored. |
| Whether the discovery tactic and mass action strategy are abusive | Plaintiffs argue economies justify broad discovery. | Defendants cite coercive settlements and improper tactics. | Abusive tactics recognized; justify denial of discovery and quashing. |
| Whether filing fees are appropriately charged given mass joinder | Mass actions evade separate filing fees. | Single filing fees reduced court revenue; joinder undermines fee statute. | Court admonishes mass actions; advises against evading filing fees; supports dismissal and limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-16, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (statutory registration prerequisite and privacy considerations in Doe discovery)
- Sony Music Entm’t Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (five-factor Sony Music test for evaluating early discovery and privacy interests)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (U.S. 2010) (copyright registration necessary as element of infringement claim; severability of jurisdiction)