Media Products, Inc. v. Unknown, No. 2:2012cv01937 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/5/2012. Doe defendants 2 - 128 are DISMISSED without prejudice. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
Media Products, Inc. v. Unknown Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEDIA PRODUCTS, INC. dba DEVIL’S FILM, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-01937 LKK AC vs. DOES 1-128, inclusive, ORDER Defendants. 15 / 16 In this action plaintiff filed an ex parte application for expedited discovery to 17 18 serve Rule 45 subpoenas on Internet Service Providers to obtain identifying information 19 applicable for the Doe defendants. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). 21 On October 5, 2012, Magistrate Judge Drozd1 filed findings and 22 recommendations herein recommending that Does 2-128 be dismissed for improper joinder of 23 those defendants. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 24 notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days after they were served. The 25 26 1 This matter was later transferred to Magistrate Judge Claire. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 fourteen-day period has expired, and no objections have been filed by any party. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. The court notes that plaintiff is 4 attempting to sue, in one action, 128 unknown defendants. Although each defendant allegedly 5 downloaded the same pornographic movie using the same program (“BitTorrent”), plaintiff’s 6 own evidence tends to show that the downloading occurred at different times (from February 7 through June, 2012), from different computers, and therefore presumably by different persons. 8 There is no allegation or inference that these defendants are related to each other, know of the 9 existence of any other defendant, acted in concert, or that these separate downloads constitute 10 “the same transaction or series of transactions” giving rise to plaintiff’s alleged injury. It is 11 therefore appropriate to sever the claims against Does 2-128 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, but 12 to permit these claims to be brought separately, if plaintiff chooses to do so. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 5, 2012, (Doc. No. 8) are 15 16 adopted in full; and 2. Does 2-128 are dismissed without prejudice. 17 18 DATED: December 5, 2012. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.