282 F.R.D. 161
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. owns the copyright to the movie Cutíes 2 and sues 21 Doe defendants for direct and contributory infringement via BitTorrent.
- Plaintiff obtained leave to serve third-party subpoenas on defendants’ ISPs to identify names and addresses; Doe 18 seeks to quash.
- The factual backdrop centers on BitTorrent mechanics, including seeders, peers, torrents, and hash identifiers.
- Plaintiff alleges all defendants are in the same Swarm linked to an Initial Seeder, enabling a series of transactions.
- Plaintiff asserts permissive joinder under Rule 20(a)(2) due to transaction-related infringement and common questions of law/fact.
- The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Doe 18’s motion to quash and to dismiss, allowing joinder to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is permissive joinder proper under Rule 20(a)(2) for BitTorrent defendants? | Plaintiff argues Defendants are in the same Swarm sharing a common torrent. | Doe 18 argues misjoinder; joinder should be improper. | Yes; joinder proper; deny quash and proceed. |
| Does BitTorrent technology satisfy the ‘same transaction or series of transactions’ requirement for Rule 20? | Plaintiff contends the swarm and chain of uploads/downloads link all defendants. | Defendant argues lack of traditional common action. | Yes; BitTorrent-linked transactions satisfy Rule 20. |
| Is misjoinder the proper remedy, or should severance apply? | Severance may be the remedy if misjoinder occurs; but joinder is proper. | If misjoinder, sever as per Rule 20; but joinder accepted here. | Misjoinder is not required; severance not necessary; joinder stands; quash/dismissals denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (joinder of many BitTorrent defendants proper)
- Donkeyball Movie, LLC v. Does 1-171, 810 F.Supp.2d 20 (D.D.C.2011) (support for permissive joinder in swarm cases)
- Hard Drive Productions v. Does 1-188, 809 F.Supp.2d 1150 (N.D.Cal.2011) (discusses joinder limits; supports broad Rule 20 interpretation)
- Mississippi v. United States, 380 U.S. 128 (1965) (joinder policy favors broad action consistent with fairness)
- United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (joinder encouraged when efficient and fair; broad action permitted)
- Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir.1974) (flexible concept of ‘transaction’ for Rule 20)