Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-5
818 F. Supp. 2d 28
D.D.C.2011Background
- Voltage filed a copyright complaint on May 24, 2010 against unnamed BitTorrent users purportedly infringing The Hurt Locker.
- The court approved expedited discovery to obtain identifying information from ISPs for putative defendants identifiable only by IP addresses.
- Seventy-one putative defendants moved to quash subpoenas, thirty-three moved to dismiss based on lack of engagement in conduct, and others sought protective orders; 118+ putative defendants had been identified, some with IPs, some without.
- On April 4, 2011 the court ordered dismissal of putative defendants not intended to be sued; on April 15, 2011 Voltage voluntarily dismissed 557 Does; the motions remaining concern 119 putative defendants.
- The court held joinder of Does is proper under Rule 20(a)(2) for purposes of expedited discovery and potential merits-related proceedings.
- The court denied all motions to quash, protective orders, and dismissals for improper joinder or lack of personal jurisdiction at this stage, noting jurisdictional discovery may later be appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subpoenas should be quashed under Rule 45 | Subpoenas are valid to identify infringers and are not barred by privacy or First Amendment concerns at this stage. | Disclosure would invade privacy/First Amendment anonymity and/or impose undue burden. | Quash denied; subpoenas upheld as proper. |
| Whether protective orders are warranted under Rule 26(c) | Protective orders are unnecessary; disclosure is needed to pursue copyright claims. | Protective orders are needed to shield privacy and anonymity of Does. | Protective orders denied; anonymity outweighed by plaintiff's need for identifying information. |
| Whether improper joinder requires dismissal under Rule 20(a)(2) or 21 | Joinder is proper because Does’ claims arise from the same BitTorrent transaction and share common questions of law and fact. | Joinder is improper because Does did not act in concert and the same transaction/occurrence test is not met. | Joinder proper at this stage; dismissal not required; severance may be considered later if necessary. |
| Whether lack of personal jurisdiction warrants dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) | Jurisdiction can be determined after discovery; discovery may illuminate jurisdictional bases. | Court lacks personal jurisdiction over unnamed Does; premature to decide. | Denies Rule 12(b)(2) dismissal; jurisdictional discovery permitted; premature to adjudicate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (First Amendment privacy interests limited when copyright infringement is alleged)
- West Bay One, Inc. v. Does 1-1653, 270 F.R.D. 13 (D.D.C. 2010) (privacy interests in Doe defendants weighed against copyright claims)
- Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (anonymous file-sharers' rights yield to plaintiff’s pursuit of copyright claims)
- Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GMBH & Co, KG v. Does 1-4,577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010) (merits irrelevant to validity of Rule 45 subpoena against Does)
- London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Mass. 2008) (expedited discovery justified where claims are cohesive and proceed via subpoena)