Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00362/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00362-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1054-LAB-DHB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

vs. SEVER

JOHN DOES 1-8,

Defendants.

The question here is whether members of a BitTorrent “swarm” who share and

download copyrighted pornography can be joined as defendants and sued for copyright

infringement together. It’s an interesting question, and as the parties well know district

courts across the country are divided on it—though not evenly. With all due respect to the

parties’ efforts in briefing the question, the undersigned Judge isn’t inclined to venture a

decision here that rises above all of the others that are out there. The question has been

certified for interlocutory appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and until it or another Court of Appeals

rules it seems restraint at the district court level is the best course. The caselaw is full at this

point; the parties just need the undersigned Judge to take sides in this case so it can go

forward in one form or another. 

With that in mind, the undersigned Judge concurs with Judge Huff’s thoughtful

decision in Patrick Collins v. John Does 1 through 9, Case No. 12-CV-1436, Doc. No. 23

(S.D. Cal Nov. 8, 2012). Judge Huff recognized that Malibu Media’s theory of joinder “has

met with mixed results in the courts,” but that “the majority view among district courts within

the Ninth Circuit is that allegations of swarm joinder are alone insufficient for joinder.” Id. at

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-00362-LAB-DHB Document 33 Filed 11/27/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. She concluded that “the interests of avoiding undue prejudice and jury confusion, as well

as judicial efficiency and fundamental fairness, are better served by severing [the John Doe

defendants] and requiring [the plaintiff] to file separate cases against each defendant

individually.” Id. at 7. The motion to sever is therefore GRANTED. In the above-captioned

case and all other Malibu Media cases assigned to the undersigned Judge, the claims

against all Does other than Doe No. 1 are dismissed without prejudice. Malibu Media may

sue the severed Does separately and individually.

Defendants also ask the Court to quash all outstanding subpoenas for the severed

Does’ identities from their respective internet service providers. An amicus brief filed by

Verizon appears to go further, and suggest that all ISP subpoenas should be quashed. The

Court’s Magistrate Judges have discussed these BitTorrent cases and agreed to restrict

early discovery from ISPs to those Doe defendants whose IP addresses originate in this

judicial district. See, e.g., 808 Holdings v. Collective of December 29, 2011 Sharing Hash,

Case No. 12-CV-186, Doc. No. 8 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2012). The Court respects the

Magistrates’ judgment, and therefore respectfully disagrees with Verizon. As for the

subpoenas related to the severed Does, Defendants’ motion to quash is GRANTED. If

Malibu Media decides to sue the severed Does separately and individually, it may seek early

discovery from the Magistrate assigned to the new cases.

The Clerk of Court is directed to file this Order in all Malibu Media cases assigned to

the undersigned Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-00362-LAB-DHB Document 33 Filed 11/27/12 Page 2 of 2