Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-11
Citations: 286 F.R.D. 113; 83 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1029; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139799; 2012 WL 4466856Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-1118
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; September 28, 2012; Federal District Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Malibu Media, LLC filed a lawsuit against 11 Doe defendants for copyright infringement regarding the movie "Pretty Back Door Baby," alleging they downloaded the film via BitTorrent. The defendants are identified solely by their IP addresses. The court partially granted Malibu Media's request to issue subpoenas to the defendants' internet service providers (ISPs) to uncover their identities, mandating that the ISPs notify the subscribers before releasing their information. John Doe 7 filed a motion to dismiss or sever the other defendants, arguing they were improperly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 21. The court analyzed the principles of severance and joinder, referencing the permissive joinder criteria in Rule 20(a), which allows multiple defendants if the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and involve common questions of law or fact. The court determined that the claims failed to meet this standard since the defendants were not shown to be engaged in concerted action, leading to the conclusion that the other defendants (Does 2-11) would be dismissed without prejudice, and only Doe 7's case would proceed. In Grynberg v. Alaska Pipeline Co., the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the Rule 20(a) test for joinder because no allegations of concerted action among the Doe defendants were made. The plaintiff's claims centered on the use of BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol, where each Doe defendant allegedly downloaded parts of a movie and interacted in a "swarm." However, the court noted that many district courts have rejected the theory of swarm joinder, emphasizing that plaintiffs must demonstrate an actual exchange of data among defendants. The complaint indicated that the downloads were separate and discrete acts occurring over 45 days, thereby lacking the necessary concerted action. Although some courts, such as Judge Howell in AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1–1,058, have accepted swarm joinder, the prevailing view remains skeptical. The reliance on United States v. Mississippi was deemed misplaced, as that case involved a clear allegation of concerted action, which was not present in this instance. Individuals involved in a discriminatory system are distinct from those whose computer programs unintentionally download parts of a larger file. The Court finds no need for an extensive opinion on the plaintiff's flawed theory regarding joinder, citing substantial existing judicial discourse. It adopts reasoning from prior cases, concluding that under the BitTorrent Protocol, not all defendants need to have participated in downloading each other's content. Mere participation in the protocol does not equate to involvement in a collective downloading effort. Consequently, the Court determines that the defendants, referred to as Does 2–11, are not properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, leading to the dismissal of these defendants without prejudice. A separate Order will follow this Memorandum Opinion.