Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00532/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00532-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 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

808 HOLDING, LLC,

Plaintiff,

NO. 12-CV-186-MMA(RBB)

ORDER OVERRULING

OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

ORDERS; SEVERING DOES;

and DISMISSING ACTION

AGAINST ALL DOES EXCEPT

DOE 1

vs.

COLLECTIVE OF DECEMBER 29,

2011 SHARING HASH E37917C8EE

B4585E6421358FF32F29CD63C23C9

1, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________

 AND RELATED CASES.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Plaintiff has filed objections to Magistrate

Judge Brooks’s thorough and well-reasoned Orders on Plaintiff’s motions to take

early discovery in the three related cases. Upon de novo review of Judge Brooks’s

Orders, Plaintiff’s objections, and the recent legal landscape related to BitTorrent

cases, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections. The Court further finds

joinder of all Does except for Doe 1 to be improper in all three cases. Accordingly,

the Court severs all Does except Doe 1 and DISMISSES without prejudice

Plaintiff’s claims against the severed Doe defendants.

- 1 - 12CV186

Case 3:12-cv-00532-MMA-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 3
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

The three related actions involve allegations of copyright infringement

against a total of 142 unknown defendants. Plaintiff alleges the defendants in each

case infringed Plaintiff’s protected work through the use of “BitTorrent” file

transfer protocol. Judge Brooks’s Orders accurately explain BitTorrent technology

and provide the factual background pertinent to each case.

The Court has reviewed Judge Brooks’s Orders in each case and has

considered Plaintiff’s objections and arguments. The Court finds each Order is

well-reasoned and free of legal error. A detailed discussion is not necessary here, as

the Court fully concurs with Judge Brooks’s analysis and conclusions in each case.

Moving now to an issue that Judge Brooks did not have occasion to fully

consider, the Court determines whether the defendants in each case have been

properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 and whether severance is

proper under Rule 21, which allows the Court to sua sponte sever parties. Courts

across the country are split on whether joinder, severance, or both are proper in

cases involving BitTorrent technology. See Next Phase Distrib., Inc. v. Does 1-27,

284 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). However, since the order issued in Next Phase

Distribution, Inc., on July 31, 2012, district courts have increasingly followed cases

in favor of severing Doe defendants. Indeed, judges in this District have recently

done the same. See, e.g., Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1 through 34, No. 12-

CV-1474-GPC(BGS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20401 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013);

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-8, No. 12-CV-1054-LAB(DHB), 2012 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 168346 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1

through 9, No. 12-CV-1436-H(MDD), Doc. No. 23 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012). In

addition to the above-cited cases from this District, the Court finds persuasive the

reasoning set forth by the courts in the following cases: R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does

1-23, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23805 (D. Colo. Feb. 21, 2013); Malibu Media, LLC v.

Does 1, 2, 4-7, 11, 16, 17 & 21, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19404 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13,

- 2 - 12CV186

Case 3:12-cv-00532-MMA-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 3
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

2013); Next Phase Distrib., Inc. v. Does 1-27, 284 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). As

Judge Burns aptly noted, “[t]he caselaw is full at this point.” Malibu Media, LLC,

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168346 at *1. Thus, “[g]iven the amount of discourse

already produced by courts around the country on this issue, the Court finds it

unnecessary to write a lengthy opinion about whether joinder [and severance are]

appropriate.” R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-23, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23805, at *8

(D. Colo. Feb. 21, 2013). The Court now joins Judge Huff, Judge Burns, and Judge

Curiel of this District and finds all Does except Doe 1 shall be severed.1

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Brooks’s Orders in each related case are

OVERRULED;

2. In the above captioned case, and all related cases, the claims against all

Does other than Doe 1 are DISMISSED without prejudice; and

3. To the extent Judge Brooks’s Order in 12-CV-186-MMA(RBB)

authorized early discovery for five Doe defendants, Plaintiff may now

seek early discovery for one Doe defendant in light of the instant

Order. Judge Brooks’s Orders in all three related cases shall remain in

effect in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

1

 The Court acknowledges the opposite result reached in Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v.

Does, No. 11-CV-575-MMA(NLS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24232 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012). 

However, the Court is certainly not bound by its decision in that case, and that Order is not

controlling in unrelated cases such as the ones at bar. Having considered the landscape of this

issue since that Order issued in February 2012, the Court now limits the Order in Liberty Media

Holdings, LLC, to that case alone.

- 3 - 12CV186

Case 3:12-cv-00532-MMA-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/22/13 Page 3 of 3