280 F.R.D. 493
D. Ariz.2012Background
- Plaintiff owns the copyright to an adult movie identified as Doe. 6-1 and alleges it was available on a peer-to-peer network from Sept.–Dec. 2011.
- Plaintiff alleges 131 computers downloaded the movie via BitTorrent without payment, constituting infringement and contributory infringement.
- Plaintiff identifies the 131 participating computers by IP address and asserts all are physically located in Arizona via reverse IP lookups.
- Plaintiff groups the 131 IPs as Doe Defendants under Rule 20(a)(2) based on shared hash, file, and timing within a swarm.
- Plaintiff seeks court-issued subpoenas to ISPs to identify the true owners of the 131 IP addresses to enable service of process.
- The court resolves (a) joinder/severance issues and (b) the request for expedited discovery after severing all but one Doe Defendant and granting discovery as to that remaining Doe Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder of the 131 Does is proper under Rule 20(a) | Plaintiff asserts all Doe Defendants were part of the same swarm and shared the same file. | Defendants contend the swarm does not constitute the same transaction or occurrence for joinder. | Joinder not proper; severance of Does 2–131 ordered. |
| Whether to sever or manage joinder discretionarily | Permissive joinder would promote efficiency by consolidating related infringers. | Joinder would cause excessive complexity and prejudice due to many unrelated defenses. | Severance approved; proceeding against only Doe 1 remains. |
| Whether expedited discovery to identify Doe 1 (IP 174.17.100.230) is appropriate | Discovery will identify the infringer and enable service; plaintiff has a copyright infringement claim. | Expedited discovery risks over-inclusion of innocent users and potential abuse. | Expedited discovery granted for Doe 1; summons to ISP authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1062, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.D.C. 2011) (discussion of efficiency and number of separate subpoenas in joinder)
- Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (discusses management problems and severance under joinder rules)