OPINION AND ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record.
UPON CONSIDERATION оf the Complaint, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court enters the following Order.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC is the registered owner of the copyright to the motion picture, “Corbin Fisher Amateur College Men Down on the Farm” (“Motion Picture”). On May 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against John Does 1-20 for allegedly infringing Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the Motion Picture. Aсcording to Plaintiff, Defendants were all users of “BitTorrent,” a “peer-to-peer file sharing protocol used for distributing and sharing data on the Internet.” Am. Compl. ¶ 33.
Unlike traditional peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networks that require a user to download a file from a single source, the BitTorrent protocol decentralizes distribution of a file by allowing users to join a “swarm”
Upon filing its Complaint, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to engage in Early Discovery (ECF No. 5) for the purpose of identifying John Does 1-20. After voluntarily dismissing a number of Doe Defendants, on Seрtember 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint naming five of the John Does and adding John Does 21-30 as Defendants. This Court now takes up the issue of whether Defendants have been properly joined.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“On mоtion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) provides, in relevant part:
(2) Defendants.
Persons — as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem — may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or*671 series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact commоn to all defendants will arise in the action.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 21(a)(2). “[T]he central purpose of Rule 20 is to promote trial convenience and expedite the resolution of disputes, thereby eliminating unnecessary lawsuits.” Alexander v. Fulton Cnty., Ga.,
III. ANALYSIS
A. Joinder
Numerous courts have found that alleged copyright infringement through the use of P2P networks is insufficient to sustain pеrmissive joinder. See Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188,
In Hard Drive Prods., Inc., the court analyzed whether joinder of 188 defendants alleged to be members of the same BitTorrent swarm was appropriate. In support of the court’s decision finding misjoinder, the court stated:
Does 1-188 did not participate in the same transaction or occurrence, or the same series of transactions or occurrenсes. Under the BitTorrent Protocol, it is not necessary that each of the Does 1-188 participated in or contributed to the downloading of each other’s copies of the wоrk at issue — or even participated in or contributed to the downloading by any of the Does 1-188. Any “pieces” of the work copied or uploaded by any individual Doe may have gonе to any other Doe or to any of the potentially thousands who participated in a given swarm. The bare fact that a Doe clicked on a command to participate in the BitTor-rent Protocol does not mean that they were part of the downloading by unknown hundreds or thousands of individuals across the country or across the world.
Id. at 1163,
In the instant case, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint identifies five named Defendants and thirteen unnamed Defendants who allegedly used BitTorrent to infringe Plaintiffs copyright in the Motion Picture. Plaintiff provides information regarding BitTorrent usage and activity for eight of the Defendants. A close examination of Defendants’ activity reveals that Defendants, subjeсt to one exception, used Bit-Torrent on different days and at different times over a two-month period. Two Defen
B. Severance
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) provides that “[m]isjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Moreover, even if joinder is appropriate, a court may, “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize,” order a separate trial of one or more claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b).
This Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion to sever and dismiss all but Defendant King from the current action. Even if joinder were appropriate, severance is necessary to avoid causing prejudice аnd unfairness to Defendants, and to expedite and economize the litigation. Plaintiff has already requested on two separate occasions an extension to hold a joint sсheduling conference. Such delay is directly attributable to the joinder of Defendants in this action. Moreover, “permitting joinder would force the Court to address the unique defenses that аre likely to be advanced by each individual Defendant, creating scores of mini-trials involving different evidence and testimony.” Hard Drive Prods., Inc.,
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all Defendants, with the exception of Defendant King, are SEVERED from the current matter. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all claims against severed Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for refiling in separate actions. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that because all severed Defendants have now been dismissеd, all subpoenas seeking discovery regarding all Defendants, with the exception of Defendant King, are QUASHED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
Notes
. The facts herein are taken from Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39).
. A "swarm” refers to all users — peers and hosts — who share a particular file. See infra.