Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe 1
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165764
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. sues John Does 1-9 for direct and indirect copyright infringement of the film Gangbanged, based on BitTorrent activity.
- Plaintiff seeks to identify subscribers behind IP addresses via third-party ISP subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
- Magistrate Judge Brown issued a Report and Recommendation allowing subpoenas to obtain identifying information for John Doe 1 only, with others dismissed and ex parte, sealed submission.
- Plaintiff dismissed Does 2-9 and objected to Brown’s findings on improper litigation tactics, likelihood of identifying infringers from IP addresses, and joinder.
- This court adopted Brown’s recommendations, finding improper mass-litigation tactics and insufficient likelihood that a given IP address identifies the actual infringer, and ordered separate actions for future similar cases.
- Court addressed joinder considerations but, as a matter of mootness, ultimately maintained that future actions be filed as separate actions against each John Doe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plaintiff’s mass-litigation approach is improper | Collins argues he does not engage in improper tactics; IPs may identify infringers | Brown found mass-litigation tactics improper and likely coercive | Affirmed: improper tactics to pursue mass actions |
| Whether an IP address alone suffices to identify the infringer | IP addresses will likely identify the infringer | IP addresses point only to an account and may involve multiple devices/users | Affirmed: IP alone insufficient to identify defendants |
| Joinder/swarm joinder under Rule 20 | Swarm joinder appropriate for same transactions | Joinder would be inappropriate due to lack of common questions; many factors weigh against it | Affirmed: severance or separate actions favored; swarm joinder not accepted |
| Whether to permit future mass actions or require separate actions | Future mass actions against multiple Does should be allowed | Separate actions preferred to avoid unfairness and waste | Affirmed: future actions should be filed separately against each John Doe |
Key Cases Cited
- Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-16, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (IP addresses insufficient to identify specific infringers; distinctions discussed)