1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DOES 1–11, 

 Defendants. 

 

Civil Action No. 12-1118 (ESH) 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC, the owner of the copyright for a movie entitled “Pretty 

Back Door Baby” (the “Movie”), has sued 11 Doe defendants alleging that they infringed 

plaintiff’s copyright by downloading a portion of the Movie by means of the BitTorrent protocol. 

(Complaint, July 9, 2012 [Dkt. No. 1] (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 11, 14–42.) Plaintiff’s complaint identifies 

the Doe defendants by their Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses only. (Id., Ex. B.) On July 9, 

2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve third party 

subpoenas on the Doe defendants’ internet service providers (ISPs) prior to a Rule 26(f) 

conference. (See Order, July 9, 2012 [Dkt. No. 5].) The Court’s July 9 Order permitted plaintiff 

to subpoena the Doe defendants’ ISPs, but required the ISPs to provide notice to the targeted 

subscribers that plaintiff was seeking their identifying information at least ten days prior to 

providing plaintiff with that information. (See id. at 1 (citing Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 

1–16, No. 12-cv-0235, 2012 WL 1681819, at *2 (D.D.C. April 11, 2012)).) 

 Before the Court is John Doe 7’s Motion to Dismiss or Sever for Misjoinder (Aug. 23, 

2012 [Dkt. No. 9] (“Doe Mot.”)) and plaintiff’s opposition (September 6, 2012 [Dkt. No. 12] 
2 

(“Pl. Opp’n”)). Doe 7 argues that he and the other Doe defendants have been improperly joined 

in this single action and that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, severance and dismissal are proper. 

For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Doe 7’s Motion and dismiss Does 2–11 from this case 

without prejudice. 

ANALYSIS

 The legal principles governing severance and joinder are well established. 

 “The court may sever claims if parties are improperly joined.” Davidson 

v. Dist. of Columbia, 736 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 21). “In determining whether parties are misjoined for purposes of Rule 21, 

courts apply the permissive joinder requirements of Rule 20(a).” Id. (citing 

Montgomery v. STG Int’l, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2008)). 

Defendants are properly joined if “any right to relief is asserted against them . . . 

with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences,” and if “any question of law or fact common to all 

defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). “[T]he two prongs 

of Rule 20(a) ‘are to be liberally construed in the interest of convenience and 

judicial economy . . . in a manner that will secure the just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination of th[e] action.’” Davidson, 736 F. Supp. 2d at 119 

(second and third alterations in the original) (quoting Lane v. Tschetter, No. 05-

cv-1414 (EGS), 2007 WL 2007493, at *7 (D.D.C. July 10, 2007)). If the Rule 

20(a) test is not satisfied, however, then defendants are not properly joined and 

the claims against them can be severed under Rule 21. See, e.g., id. at 119–22. 

 Pursuant to the first prong of the Rule 20(a) test, [plaintiff’s] claims 

against defendants “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2), only if they are “‘logically 

related.’” Maverick Entm’t Grp., Inc. v. Does 1–2,115, 810 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 

(D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Disparte v. Corporate Exec. Bd., 223 F.R.D. 7, 10 

(D.D.C. 2004)); accord Bederson v. United States, 756 F. Supp. 2d 38, 54 

(D.D.C. 2010). “The logical relationship test is flexible because ‘the impulse is 

toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness 

to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.’” 

Disparte, 223 F.R.D. at 10 (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 

U.S. 715, 724 (1966)). Yet, [plaintiff] “cannot join defendants who simply 

engaged in similar types of behavior, but who are otherwise unrelated; some 

allegation of concerted action between defendants is required.” Grynberg v. 

Alaska Pipeline Co., No. 95-cv-725(TFH), 1997 WL 33763820, at *1 (D.D.C. 

March 27, 1997) (emphasis added); see id. at *2 (examining cases and concluding 

that “[c]ourts have not joined totally independent actors, without any allegation of 

concert or conspiracy” (citing United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128 (1965); 
3 

Nassau Cnty. Ass’n of Ins. Agents v. Aetna Life & Cas., 497 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 

1974); Cohen v. Dist. of Columbia Nat’l Bank, 59 F.R.D. 84 (D.D.C. 1972))). 

Spaeth v. Mich. State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F. Supp. 2d 48, 53 (D.D.C. 2012) (footnote 

omitted, citation format altered).1

 The Court concludes that plaintiff has not satisfied the Rule 20(a) test because plaintiff 

has not alleged concerted action among the Doe defendants. Plaintiff alleges that each Doe 

defendant used BitTorrent, a “common peer-to-peer file sharing protocol[]” (Compl. ¶ 14), to 

download the same piece of a larger file containing the Movie. (See id. ¶¶ 16–42.) Key to 

plaintiff’s joinder theories are the following allegations: 

Once a peer receives a piece of the computer file, here a piece of the [Movie], it 

starts transmitting that piece to the other peers. . . . In this way, all of the peers 

and seeders are working together in what is called a “swarm.” . . . Here, each 

[Doe defendant] peer member participated in the same swarm and directly 

interacted and communicated with other members of that swarm through digital 

handshakes, the passing along of computer instructions, uploading and 

downloading, and by other types of transmissions. 

(Id. ¶¶ 31–33.2

) 

 “[A] growing number of district courts have recently held that swarm joinder is not 

appropriate.” Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–54, No. 12-cv-1407, 2012 WL 3030302, at *2 

 

1

 The first prong of the two-part Rule 20 test may also be satisfied if “any right to relief is 

asserted against [defendants] jointly[ or] severally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff 

“asserts that . . . each of the [Doe defendants] is jointly and severally liable for the infringing 

activities of each of the other [Doe defendants]” (Compl. ¶ 10), but neither plaintiff’s complaint 

nor its opposition to Doe 7’s motion provides any justification for this claim. Accordingly, the 

Court will not consider it. 

2

 Although the Court does not rely on this fact, it notes that BitTorrent clients—the computer 

programs used to access the BitTorrent protocol—can be configured such that materials which 

they download are not accessible, and cannot be uploaded, to other peers. Thus, the factual basis 

for plaintiff’s assertion that each Doe defendant both downloaded and uploaded a piece of the 

Movie (Compl. ¶ 31) is dubious. 
4 

(D. Colo. July 25, 2012) (collecting cases); see also Raw Films, Inc. v. Does 1–32, No. 1:11-cv2939, 2011 WL 6840590, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 29, 2011) (The swarm joinder theory “has been 

considered by various district courts, the majority of which have rejected it.”). This Court 

agrees.3

 “[A] plaintiff must allege facts that permit the court at least to infer some actual, 

concerted exchange of data between [the Doe defendants].” Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–

54, 2012 WL 3030302, at *2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff has not 

done so here. 

Nothing in the complaint negates the inference that the downloads by the various 

[Doe] defendants were discrete and separate acts that took place at different times; 

indeed, the complaint alleges that separate defendants shared access to a file 

containing a pornographic film in separate and isolated incidents over the course 

of [45] days. [(See Compl., Ex. B.)] In other words, what we have here [are 11] 

separate and discrete transactions in which [11] individuals used the same method 

to access a file via the Internet—no concerted action whatever, and no series of 

related occurrences—at least, not related in any way except the method that was 

allegedly used to violate the law. 

Digital Sins, Inc. v. John Does 1–245, No. 11-cv-8170, 2012 WL 1744838, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 

15, 2012).4

 

3

 The Court acknowledges, however, that Judge Howell has recently concluded that the swarm 

joinder theory is permissible. See AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1–1,058, No. 12-cv-048, 2012 WL 

3204917, at *14 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2012); see also Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–54, 2012 

WL 3030302, at *2 (“Courts across the country are split on whether this theory of swarm joinder 

is appropriate.” (collecting cases)).

4

 Plaintiff’s reliance on United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128 (1965), is misplaced. (See Pl. 

Opp’n at 4.) Indeed, Mississippi underscores that joinder is only proper where a plaintiff alleges 

concerted action among defendants. There, the Supreme Court’s conclusion that joinder was 

proper was contingent on the fact that plaintiff alleged that defendants, individual voter 

registrars, “had acted and were continuing to act as part of a state-wide system designed to 

enforce the registration laws” so as to discriminate against people of color. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 

at 142. Individuals who act together as part of a discriminatory system—indeed who are alleged 

to have acted intentionally to comprise and actively further that system—are a far cry from 

individuals whose computer programs, with or without the individuals’ knowledge, download 

pieces of a larger file in unconcerted fashion. 
5 

 “There is no need for this Court to write another lengthy opinion discussing why 

plaintiff’s theory is wrong.” Id. at *2; see also Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–54, 2012 WL 

3030302, at *3 (“Given 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 is 

appropriate.”). Rather, the Court explicitly adopts the reasoning put forward by Judge McMahon 

in Digital Sins, Inc. v. John Does 1–245, 2012 WL 1744838, at *1–4, by Judge Motz in Patrick 

Collins, Inc. v. Does 1–23, No. 8:12-cv-087, 2012 WL 1144918, at *1–7 (D. Md. April 4, 2012), 

and by Magistrate Judge Spero in Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 

1150, 1157–65 (N.D. Cal. 2011). See also In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement 

Cases, Nos. 11-cv-3995, 12-cv-1147, 12-cv-1150, and 12-cv-1154, 2012 WL 1570765, at *11–

12 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012). Ultimately, 

Under the BitTorrent Protocol, it is not necessary that each of the Does 1–[11] 

participated in or contributed to the downloading of each other’s [pieces] of the 

work at issue—or even participated in or contributed to the downloading by any 

of the Does 1–[11]. Any []pieces[] of the work copied or uploaded by any 

individual Doe may have gone 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 BitTorrent 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. 

Hard Drive Prods., 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1163. For the reasons set forth in these opinions, the 

Court finds that the Doe defendants in this action are not properly joined and that dismissal of 

Does 2–11 is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.5

CONCLUSION 

 Because the Court concludes that joinder is improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, it will 

 

5

 Accordingly, the Court need not reach Doe 7’s arguments for quashing the subpoena issued to 

his ISP or for a protective order. 
6 

grant Doe 7’s motion and dismiss Does 2–11 without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies 

this Memorandum Opinion. 

 /s/ 

 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE 

 United States District Judge 

Date: September 28, 2012