IN
THE
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT
COURTFORTHE
EASTERNDISTRICT
OF
VIRGINIARichmondDivision
PATRICKCOLLINS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil
Action
No.
3:11
cv531
-JAG
JOHNDOES
1-58,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
ORDER
Thiscaseconcernstheallegeduploadinganddownloading
of
thepornographicfilm"Curies2"(the"Work")usingapeer-to-peerfilesharingclientknownasBitTorrent.Theplaintifffiledacomplaint(the"Complaint")forcopyrightinfringementonAugust15,2011,
claimingthat58JohnDoedefendantsviolatedtheUnitedStatesCopyrightAct,17U.S.C.§§
101-1332,
in
securing
and
sharing
a
copy
of
theWork
overthe
internet.1To
establish
personal
jurisdictioninthisdistrict,theplaintiffusedgeolocationtechnologyandtracedtheInternet
Protocol("IP")addresses
of
eachdefendanttoacquirethegenerallocationandtime
of
the
allegedinfringement.(ComplaintK4.)
OnAugust16,2011,theCourtgrantedthe
plaintiffs
requestforleavetotakediscoverypriortotheRule26(f)conference,authorizingittoserveRule45subpoenasontheinternet
serviceproviders("ISPs")namedinExhibitA
of
theComplaint.Upondueconsideration,
1Plaintiffs
counsel
filed
virtually
identicalcomplaints
in
threecases
before
thisCourt,including
theinstantcase:CivilCaseNos.3:11cv469,3:11cv531,and3:11cv532.Various
Doe
defendants
havefiledmotionstosever,quash,ordismissinallthreecases.None
of
themotionsareripeat
thistime;however,theypresentsimilar,
if
notidentical,issues.Intheinterest
of
justice,the
Court,
suasponte,
determinedthatthisMemorandumOrderwasnecessarytoconformtothe
FederalRules
of
CivilProcedure.
Case 3:11-cv-00531-JAG Document 22 Filed 10/05/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 133
however,theCourtfindsthatDoedefendants2-58havebeenimproperlyjoinedinviolation
of
FederalRule
of
CivilProcedure20(a)(2).Forthereasonsstatedherein,theCourtfindsthatall
defendantsexceptDoe1shouldbeSEVEREDfromthiscase.
Discussion
TheBitTorrentsoftwareatissueallowsapersontovisitaprivatewebsiteanddownload
afilecontainingthedesireddigitalmediaontoaprogramalreadyinstalledontheuser's
computer.Oncethefileisloaded,theBitTorrentprogramconnectstohundredsorthousands
of
differentusersthatpossessandsharecopies
of
theparticularmediacontainedinthefile,anditcoordinatesthecopying
of
themediausingthedigitalcopies
of
thoseotherusers.Astheoriginaluser(or"peer")downloadshisorhercopy,itisimmediatelymadeavailabletootheruserslookingtoobtainthefile.Inthisway,thecollection
of
userswhosimultaneously"share"aparticularfileisknownasa"swarm."Theplaintiff,inessence,reliesonthis"swarm"theoryto
claimthatthedefendantsactedinconcertthroughaseries
of
transactionstocommitthe
infringement.
(See
Compl.K10.)TheCourt,however,disagreeswiththisconception
of
proper
joinderundertheFederalRules
of
CivilProcedure.
UnderRule20(a)(2),permissivejoinder
of
defendantsisproperif:"(A)anyrighttorelief
isassertedagainstthemjointly,severally,orinthealternativewithrespecttoorarisingout
of
thesametransaction,occurrence,orseries
of
transactionsoroccurrences;and(B)anyquestion
of
laworfactcommontoalldefendantswillariseintheaction."Fed.R.Civ.P.20(a)(2).Rule
20(a)(2)isdesignedtopromotejudicialeconomyandtrialconvenience.
SeeMosley
v.
Gen.
Motors,
497F.2d1330,1332-33(8thCir.1974).Furthermore,Rule21provides:
"[misjoinder
of
partiesisnotagroundfordismissinganaction.Onmotionoronitsown,thecourtmayat
Case 3:11-cv-00531-JAG Document 22 Filed 10/05/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 134
anytime,onjustterms,addordropaparty.
Thecourtmayalsoseveranyclaimagainstaparty."
Fed.R.Civ.P.21(emphasisadded).
Inshort,theplaintiffhasfailedtodemonstrateanyrighttoreliefagainstthedefendants
arisingout
of
thesametransaction,occurrence,orseries
of
transactionsoroccurrences."Merely
committingthesametype
of
violationinthesamewaydoesnotlinkdefendantstogetherfor
purposes
of
joinder."
LafaceRecords,LLCv.Does1-38,
No.5:07-CV-298,2008U.S.Dist.
LEXIS
14544,at*7(E.D.N.C.Feb.27,2008).TheCourtagreeswithJudgeSpero'sanalysisin
a
recent
decision
from
the
United
StatesDistrictCourt
for
the
Northern
District
of
California:
UndertheBitTorrentProtocol,itisnotnecessarythateach
of
theDoes1-188participated
inorcontributedtothedownloading
of
eachother'scopies
of
the
work
atissue—oreven
participatedinorcontributedtothedownloading
by
any
of
theDoes1-188.
Any
"pieces"
of
theworkcopiedoruploaded
by
anyindividualDoemayhavegonetoanyotherDoe
ortoany
of
thepotentiallythousandswhoparticipatedinagivenswarm.
ThebarefactthataDoeclickedonacommandtoparticipateintheBitTorrentProtocoldoes
notmeanthattheywere
part
of
thedownloadingbyunknownhundredsorthousands
of
individuals
across
thecountryor
across
theworld...Indeed,PlaintiffconcedesthatwhiletheDoeDefendantsmayhaveparticipatedinthesameswarm,theymaynothave
beenphysicallypresentintheswarmontheexactsamedayandtime.
HardDriveProductions,Inc.v.Does1-188,
No.C-11-01566,2011U.S.Dist.
LEXIS
94319,at
*39-40(N.D.Cal.August23,2011)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Themereallegationthatthedefendantshaveusedthesamepeer-to-peernetworktocopy
andreproducetheWork—whichoccurredondifferentdaysandtimesoveraspan
of
two
months—isinsufficienttomeetthestandards
of
joindersetforthinRule20.
SeeDiabolic
Video
Productions,Inc.v.Does1-2099,
No.10-CV-5865,2011U.S.Dist.
LEXIS
58351,at*10-11(N.D.Cal.
May
31,2011);
seealsoMillenniumTGA,Inc.v.Does1-21,No.
11-2258,2011U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
53465,at*6-7(N.D.Cal.May12,2011).Accordingly,theCourtconcludesthat
joinder
of
theDoedefendantsinthisactiondoesnotsatisfyRule20(a).Intheinterest
of
Case 3:11-cv-00531-JAG Document 22 Filed 10/05/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 135
