Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2012/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:31:08+00:00

Document:
And a motion will also be heard on Mr. Duffy for his lack of candor in relation to his connection with this matter based upon the representation of Mr. Torres that he was contacted by the Prenda Law Group or Prenda Law, Inc. for the purpose of being retained as local counsel in this case and that was not presented to the Court in this purported correspondence. The case is dismissed.
In Combat Zone v. Does 1-84, a Boston, Massachusetts, case, Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal has ordered plaintiff's counsel to submit a statement explaining whether he has entered into a settlement with a defendant in violation of the Court's previously issued order directing him not to enter into any settlements.
an IP address alone is insufficient to establish “a reasonable likelihood [that] it will lead to the identity of defendants who could be sued.” In re BitTorrent, 2012 WL 1570765, at *7. Judge Brown noted that an IP address only points to the internet account in question, and “[a]s a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices—which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals.” Id. at *3 (citing U.S. v. Latham, No. 06-CR-379, 2007 WL 4563459, at *4 (D. Nev. Dec. 18, 2007)). Due to the prevalence of wireless routers, the actual device that performed the allegedly infringing activity could have been owned by a relative or guest of the account owner, or even an interloper without the knowledge of the owner.
a simple internet search reveals that detailed instructions are widely available that would allow anyone with only a moderate degree of computer knowledge to “hack” any wireless network that uses this feature, using almost any modern laptop. Furthermore, at least one website offers a $99 kit that gives the same capability to any user with even the most basic knowledge of computers. Many routers also use a security method known as Wired Equivalent Privacy (“WEP”), which the FBI warns has its own share of exploitable vulnerabilities. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Got a Wireless Network? It’s Time to Shore Up Security (May 4, 2007) available at http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/may/wireless_050407.
If the Court were to hold internet account holders responsible for any interlopers and guests who might infringe on the Plaintiff’s work, the Court would essentially be imposing a duty that every home internet user vigilantly guard their wireless network. The Court declines to impose such a duty. See AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 12-CV-2049, 2012 WL 3835102, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2012) (“AF Holdings has not articulated any basis for imposing on Hatfield a legal duty to prevent the infringement of AF Holdings’ copyrighted works [by securing his wireless network], and the court is aware of none.”).
Judge Spatt concluded "that the Plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the discovery requested would lead to the identity of the Defendants who could be sued."
Judge Spatt likewise agreed with Magistrate Judge Brown that there was no basis for joinder in these cases, under the Federal Rules.
In Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, the plaintiffs and the individual defendant Michael Robertson have moved for reconsideration.
In a Boston, Massachusetts, case, Discount Video Center v. Does 1-29, Chief Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin has entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for ex parte discovery, due to the plaintiff's failure to set forth a discovery plan that would be calculated to identify the actual copyright infringer, rather than the subscriber to the internet service. Judge Sorokin characterized plaintiff's plan to dismiss without prejudice as to one of the Does and to start a new action against that Doe, without knowing who the actual infringer is, as 'smacking of' a "bad faith effort to harass the third-party subscriber".
In a Massachusetts case, New Sensations v. Does 1-83, District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV has sua sponte severed and dismissed as to Does 2-83, holding both that the requirement for permissive joinder that the claims arise from the same "transaction or occurrence" is not met, and that even if it had been met, there was an insufficient basis for the court to exercise its discretion in favor of joinder.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.